On August 19, 2026, the Anglican Church in North America’s Court for the Trial of a Bishop unanimously found the Rt. Rev. Derek Jones guilty of all four canonical charges brought against him: willful refusal to follow a Godly Admonition, disobedience to the canons of the Church, abuse of ecclesiastical authority, and promoting and causing schism within the Church. On behalf of the American Anglican Council (AAC), I welcome the clarity and firmness of the Court’s opinion. I also pray for the College of Bishops as it prepares to determine an appropriate sentence for a bishop who, in the words of the Court, fell “grievously short” of the standard of pastoral care expected of those entrusted with episcopal office (In re Jones ¶ 1).
The procedural history alone is remarkable. Jones was presented on October 21, 2025. He subsequently failed to respond to the summons issued on April 24, 2026; failed to file an Answer to the charges by the May 26 deadline; failed to respond to the Provincial Prosecutor’s July 7 motion for summary judgment; and failed to appear at the August 10 hearing. The Court, however, did not simply enter judgment because Jones refused to appear to defend himself. Its lengthy opinion considered the substantial evidence presented and reached conclusions that point out Jones’ repeated failures and highlight the need for reform as we pursue healthy leadership in Christ’s Church.
The Court found that Jones “promoted (among the chaplains under his charge) isolation, authoritarian submission, doubt, hopelessness, and deceit” (¶ 10). It went further, concluding that Jones “sought to force submission and wield power, rejecting Godly authority and inquiry in a manner that is as unlike Christ as one can imagine” (Id.).
At the heart of this case was the extraordinary power Jones exercised over military chaplains through their ecclesiastical endorsements. For a military chaplain, an endorsement is not merely a letter of recommendation. It is essential to his or her continued service and must be maintained throughout a chaplain’s career. The ability to withhold or revoke that endorsement therefore carries enormous power over a chaplain’s vocation and livelihood.
According to the Court, remaining in “good standing” under Jones required chaplains to transfer from their dioceses into the Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy (SJAFC). That transfer was significant. A diocese ordinarily contains important checks upon episcopal authority, including standing committees composed of clergy and laity. The SJAFC lacked comparable safeguards. Chaplains were also required to remit a percentage of their income to the jurisdiction. Those who questioned this arrangement could face serious consequences. The opinion describes complainants being required to undergo punitive mental-health counseling and being prohibited, under threat of discipline, from discussing their concerns with other bishops.
When Provincial authorities eventually intervened, Jones ignored Godly Admonitions and Inhibitions, instructed chaplains not to cooperate with the Provincial investigation, participated in forming a new religious organization to which chaplains were encouraged to transfer, and pursued litigation against the ACNA over the SJAFC’s trademarks and alleged interference with its business, notwithstanding the fact that the SJAFC itself existed by virtue of the ACNA’s canons.
The testimony of Chaplains A, B, and C presents an especially disturbing picture of authoritarian control and retaliation against those who attempted to report misconduct. The Court concluded that there was “ample evidence that [Jones] engaged in abusive behavior to manipulate clergy…and inflicted financial, emotional, and psychological stress on persons under [Jones’] care.”
This case also provides an important perspective on the canonical reforms recently adopted by the ACNA. As Director of the AAC’s Anglican Governance Ministries and Chair of the ACNA Provincial Constitution and Canons Committee, I am often asked how cases arising under the former Title IV might have proceeded under our newly revised disciplinary canons. In this instance, the answer is unusually clear: the abuses described in the Jones opinion could have been addressed much earlier. Under the new Title IV, an abused chaplain would have a clear avenue for reporting misconduct, anonymously if necessary. The Provincial Reports Investigation Team would then assess those allegations independently, without the kinds of outside influence and procedural obstacles that too often prevented concerns from receiving timely and impartial consideration under the previous system.
No canonical system can guarantee that abuse will never occur. Canons cannot manufacture holiness, humility, or good judgment. They can, however, establish structures that make misconduct harder to conceal, give those who have been harmed somewhere safe to turn, and ensure that allegations against those entrusted with great authority are investigated fairly. Had better structures existed earlier, Jones might have faced discipline years ago, sparing chaplains from remaining under the misused authority the Court has now so forcefully condemned.
There remains important work to be done.
The AAC particularly welcomes the Court’s suggestion that those who may have been improperly disciplined by Jones receive a “biblical and canonical response [by the Province] to the disciplinary actions taken by [Jones] and, where warranted, reversal of any undue disciplinary actions” (¶ 116). Justice requires not only stopping abuse but, wherever possible, repairing what that abuse has damaged. We also look forward to working alongside the Rt. Rev. Jay Cayangyang, the new bishop of the SJAFC, to reform the canons governing the SJAFC, as we seek to establish clear lines of authority for endorsement, pastoral care, and clergy discipline with proper checks and balances.
The Church entrusts bishops with tremendous authority precisely so that they may shepherd Christ’s people. That authority must never become a means of coercion, retaliation, or personal control. The Jones verdict is a sobering account of what can happen when those boundaries fail. Our responsibility now is not merely to acknowledge that failure, but to continue building a healthier system so that it is far less likely to happen again.