Virtue Signaling and Character Assassination in the ACNA

It turns out that the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has a thriving dark underbelly of priests and laypeople who are prone to wield accusations of virtue signaling and character assassination, among other things, often against fellow ACNAers, as they virtue-signal and assassinate others’ character.

I normally try to steer clear of dark underbellies for the sake of my mental health, but perhaps my foray into these depths is a worthy Lenten exercise. Seeing other Christians mocked and mistreated online, especially by priests, is not pleasant. On the other hand, ignoring racist, sexist, and general hateful commentary by ACNA priests – even if their behavior isn’t representative of our clergy as a whole – does not seem loving, wise, or principled. What other depravities do we typically hide our faces from to make ourselves more comfortable?

For context, I was drawn into this endeavor by an unfortunate event last week. An ACNA webinar on sexism and abuse (see image above) was cancelled under questionable circumstances – and after generating much vitriol online. Fortuitously, the event was saved by new sponsors and held just last night. But the vitriol against women prompted me to do a bit more digging.

What I found is that virtue-signaling and character assassination seem to be terms that some ACNA priests and laypeople weaponize against anyone who 1) takes a moral stance on an issue that challenges their stance; 2) critiques their ideas; or 3) raises an inquiry, in good faith, into the conduct of clergy.

For instance, Rev. Lee Nelson in 2024 accused Bishop Todd Hunter of “virtue signaling” simply because he acknowledged the “derogatory” comments that Calvin Robinson made toward women clergy at an ACNA conference. Bishop Hunter also noted the rejection that many women clergy endure due to ACNA’s acceptance of both pro-and-anti-women’s ordination views, a policy known “dual integrities.”

But how was Bishop Hunter virtue signaling? At some risk to his reputation, he took a bold stand in support of the women who felt dehumanized by Robinson. And his support for women goes beyond words, since – as he indicated in the letter cited by Rev. Lee – he ordains women as deacons, priests, rectors, and deans. He declared in the same letter that these women are “among my most trusted advisors.”

Thus by definition, Bishop Hunter isn’t virtue-signaling here because he’s not just “signaling” his virtue with words; he’s doing it. He’s calling for women to be honored and honoring women with his actions.

Earlier in 2021, Rev. Lee also criticized the ACNA victims advocacy group, ACNAtoo, as virtue signaling, with reference to their recently-posted “Survivor Story Guidelines.” But again, it’s not clear from anything he wrote or referenced where this supposed “virtue signaling” is occurring. ACNAtoo isn’t, for example, making a false show of support for survivors; they are giving them a platform to share their stories. 

Ultimately Rev. Lee doesn’t seem to know what virtue signaling actually means. He’s just weaponizing a buzzword to denigrate a fellow member of clergy and an organization (he disparaged ACNAtoo as a “mob”) who have different views. In that way, Rev. Lee hypocritically calls out the bad “virtue-signaler”, while he himself engages in a smear campaign. Conveniently, by deriding Bishop Hunter and ACNAtoo as “virtue signaling,” Rev. Lee doesn’t actually engage with their claims – he just attacks (falsely) their character.

This is pretty gross.

But other Anglicans are doing it too. Rev. Lee is just an example. By all means, Google it and see for yourself.

Here’s a legitimate (somewhat dated) example of virtue-signaling: Hollywood actor James Franco supporting the #MeToo movement on social media, as it emerged in lawsuits that he allegedly sexually exploited women taking classes at his film and acting school, Studio 4.

It’s possible to fairly call someone out for virtue-signaling. But all of us – especially priests! – need to be careful. Because when you accuse someone of virtue-signaling, you’re saying, “Your actions don’t match your words; you’re just signaling!” You either really have to know the person to draw that conclusion, or the incongruity of his/her deeds with his/her actions has to be observed by you or somehow documented (as in the case of James Franco). Otherwise, you yourself are virtue-signaling.

Priests should probably steer clear of the word altogether unless criticizing its usage.

Character assassination

Along with virtue signaling, character assassination is another buzzword you’ll find on the Anglican dark web, if I can call it that. For instance, Rev. Lee accuses ACNAtoo of virtue-signaling and character assassination, although he provides no evidence for either. As with virtue signaling, making unsupported claims of “character assassination” against a group is an ironic means of assassinating their character.

But what exactly is character assassination?

Well, it’s a kind of murder. Rev. Sam Ferguson, rector of the Falls Church Anglican, made this point last Sunday in a sermon on the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder.” He clarified that this command does not forbid self-defense, capital punishment, or killing in war, but it also goes beyond physical murder. He said, for instance, that you can “murder” someone’s name, eg, by character assassination:

Friends, we need to be so careful with how we use words, particularly in an environment where people write a lot online. How quick we are to label people, to generalize, and just use whatever ‘ism we think is the best sledgehammer to socially crush them with a label, to make them morally repugnant with a word, to kill their name: character assassination.

I would add here that character assassination also involves either outright lies about a person or truths deliberately manipulated to create a distorted impression of a person.

But, as with murder, let’s also be very clear as to what character assassination is not. Because there are clearly priests and laypeople in the ACNA who have no idea, given how they are mis-using the term in various contexts.

Character assassination is not calling for an inquiry into the actions of clergy or criticizing institutions based on evidence of potential misconduct (as ACNAtoo has done), nor is it investigating and reporting on potentially questionable clergy behavior (as the Washington Post has done, with respect to Bishop Dobbs and Archbishop Steve Wood). Character assassination is not sharply disagreeing with someone and calling out why their ideas are wrong, theologically or otherwise. Character assassination is not exposing behavior that appears to be sexist, racist, illegal, etc. These acts, in good faith, don’t constitute character assassination; instead, they can be a vital part of God’s call, in the sixth commandment, to honor life. To consecrate it.

There’s a big difference between attacking someone’s ideas and attacking them personally – as big as the difference between self-defense and murder. But sometimes people get so invested in their ideas, and their egos are so huge, that psychologically they can’t distinguish between the two. So they lash out at the other person: the other person/group is bad, the other person/group is virtue signaling, the other person/group is engaged in character assassination, the other person/group must be excised, must be silenced, etc.

This reaction is narcissistic and self-serving. It’s part of the culture of death, and I rebuke it.

Rev. Lee will probably never read this post, but if he does, I’m guessing he’d wrongly dismiss me as virtue signaling.