Like so many of you, we at the American Anglican Council have been in prayer as the trial of Bishop Stuart Ruch has unfolded in a swirl of confusion and disruption. From the beginning, this process has been long, complex, and often bewildering. No one, however, could have anticipated the level of chaos that broke loose in recent weeks.

Midway through the trial, both the Provincial Prosecutor and his assistant abruptly resigned. Their resignations were followed by public statements explaining their reasons, casting even more uncertainty on an already difficult process. The Court for the Trial of a Bishop, our Archbishop, members of the College of Bishops, and the Executive Committee have each responded in public ways, which has heightened the sense of disarray. And, to be clear, while this chaos has not been caused by our current disciplinary canons, the question must be asked: can this chaotic moment spur us on to growing more mature as a province? 

At the moment, we are in a holding pattern. The Court has granted a recess to allow the newly appointed prosecutor time to catch up before proceedings resume in October. As we pause and take stock, the AAC calls the entire Province to prayer. We ask God to bring truth to light in His time. We ask for grace as we seek justice for victims of abuse and healing for those who have suffered. We ask for wisdom for our leaders, and for growth for the ACNA, so that out of this painful confusion might come more transparent disciplinary processes for bishops, priests, and deacons.

This work—creating clearer, more mature canons—is at the forefront of what the AAC is doing right now.

A Way Forward Through Revised Disciplinary Canons

It would be easy, in the wake of the current state of the Ruch trial, to throw up our hands in frustration. But rather than become mired in lament, the AAC has taken a leading role in pursuing reform.

We are pleased to share that a revised set of disciplinary canons is now available for prayerful review and comment across the Province. These revisions, housed in “Title IV” of our canons, are posted online at anglicanchurch.net/title-iv-review. There you will find not only the full text but also summaries, slides, and videos to help guide your reading.

As chair of the Governance Task Force (GTF)—the body charged with proposing these changes—and as Director of Anglican Governance Ministries for the AAC, I want to briefly highlight the revisions and how they bring clarity where confusion has too often prevailed. Our hope is that clear, predictable rules—known in advance, observable by all—will build the trust essential to any disciplinary system.

Three Problems, Three Solutions

At the heart of the proposed changes are three major reforms. 

1. Clarity and Specificity

The revised canons are more comprehensive and explicit than what we currently have. Our present disciplinary rules are strikingly short. They leave critical questions unanswered: How should a report of misconduct be received? What is the process for investigating it? What powers do investigators and tribunals actually have? Too often, parties are left filling in the blanks as they go.

The revised canons address this directly. The result is a longer text—48 pages instead of 11—but also a far clearer one. The added detail spells out who does what, when, and how. Our prayer is that this clarity will reduce delay, increase efficiency, and strengthen trust across the Province.

2. From Adversarial to Inquiry

The revisions move us away from an adversarial model of truth-seeking toward an inquiry model.

In an adversarial system, each side gathers evidence, presents its best case, and relies on skilled advocacy to sway a neutral tribunal. This is the model used in secular courts, and by default it has been ours as well, given the gaps in our current canons.

But adversarial systems, especially when dropped into the life of the Church, often generate confusion, delay, and even mistrust. We have experienced this firsthand in recent years.

The inquiry model is different. Truth is sought through official investigation and by a tribunal empowered to manage proceedings actively. The tribunal does not sit passively, waiting to be persuaded by lawyers. It can pursue the evidence it deems necessary, prioritize what truly matters, and focus on discovering the truth. Attorneys—here called proctors or advocates—still play a role, but they advise rather than drive the process.

Historically, most Christian traditions have employed the inquiry model. Our revisions are, in many ways, a recovery of that wiser, more ecclesial approach.

3. Transparency and Process

The new canons lay out the entire disciplinary process in a transparent manner, from the initial report of misconduct through investigation, trial, and appeal.

If a bishop is accused of misconduct, the process begins with a report—something anyone with direct knowledge can make. A newly created officer, the Reports Receiver, evaluates the report. In consultation with others (including the Archbishop in the case of reports regarding a bishop), the Reports Receiver may dismiss frivolous claims, pursue mediation or pastoral resolution, or launch a formal investigation.

Investigations are then conducted by a standing Reports Investigations Committee, staffed by individuals with experience in trauma response, canon law, and fact-finding. This Committee drafts formal charges—called presentments—and prosecutes cases before a Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, conducts the inquiry, renders a verdict, and issues a sentence, which is then reviewed by a panel of three bishops.

This is a radical improvement over our current Title IV, where, among other problems, presentments precede investigations, where there is no clear canonical process for handling reports before formal charges, and where one-and-done Boards of Inquiry with no investigative expertise handle cases.

The revisions also create a parallel process for the discipline of priests and deacons, which we commend to our dioceses for adoption.

What Should You Do?

The Governance Task Force is not doing this work in a vacuum. We want and need the engagement of the whole Province. So here is our appeal:

• Visit the Title IV revision site.
• Read the proposals.
• Watch the August Town Hall and the presentation made at Provincial Council.
• Encourage your bishop and standing committees to engage with the process.
• Share your own input.

These are not merely legalistic details. They are the structures by which the Church protects its people, holds leaders accountable, and bears witness to the gospel’s demand for justice and holiness.

For those of you who already support the AAC in this work, thank you. Your partnership makes it possible. For all of us, this moment is a call to lean in—not to despair at the confusion we’ve witnessed, but to labor together for a disciplinary process that is transparent, efficient, and trustworthy.

The AAC is honored to serve in this role. We believe these reforms are a necessary step toward maturity for a growing province. They are not perfect, and they will no doubt require refinement in practice. However, they represent a decisive move toward the clarity, fairness, and accountability that God’s people deserve. And we are thankful to the Province for their unwavering support in the development of these revisions – through the Town Hall sponsored by Archbishop Wood, ongoing stakeholder meetings, and a clear commitment to make these reforms a key pillar of the next year of our life as the ACNA. 

As we await the resumption of the Ruch trial, let us not only pray for truth and healing, but also work faithfully to ensure that when the next trial comes, we will be ready with a more robust, transparent system of discipline. And may all that we do be done with the integrity worthy of Christ’s Church.

— The Rev. Cn. Andrew Rowell is the Director of Anglican Governance Ministries (AGM) and the Chair of the ACNA Governance Taskforce. To find out more, visit our AGM webpage!