If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all our sins. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7–9)

In early December, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) met at Christ Church Cathedral in Plano, Texas. I was present for these meetings, which were marked by prayer, repentance, and deep reflection on our shared episcopal ministry. We spent significant time listening to one another, asking questions of those bishops who had prior awareness of the current presentments, and discussing the lack of clarity that has long dogged our efforts to apply discipline to ourselves as bishops. By discipline, I mean discipline that is honest, open, and consistent with the principles of natural justice, due process, fairness and the unique purpose of such discipline—to make better disciples of everyone in the process. We prayed for those who are in pain, for those who have brought complaints, and for all who are walking through the disciplinary processes of the Church. Bishop Julian Dobbs, Dean of Provincial Affairs, rendered an extraordinary service to the province by shaping our time together around honest and difficult conversations, punctuated by prayer, a litany of repentance, and the opportunity to seek confession for our own sins, with an elder bishop-confessor set aside for that purpose.

This gathering marked a good beginning to some very hard conversations that are long overdue. Yet, as many have observed, it was only a beginning, and one that left people wanting more. Some commentators have challenged the bishops’ statement that followed the meeting as being too vague and not sufficiently specific. To some degree, that criticism is fair. We must confess that the statement was not specific, that it was the beginning of repentance, not its completion.

Biblical repentance, however, is always specific. Consider Nehemiah chapters nine and ten, where the people of Israel confess, in detail, the particular sins of their entire history before resolving anew to walk forward under God’s blessing and leadership. Or recall the scene Luke 3 where the crowd, tax collectors and soldiers come to John the Baptist, asking what repentance requires of them. John does not offer a general exhortation. He tells them precisely what they must do. Likewise, in John 8 when Jesus encounters the woman caught in adultery, his words are both merciful and direct: “Go, and sin no more.”

Repentance requires specificity, both for the sins we have committed and for the duties we have neglected. In the Anglican tradition, we confess not only what we have done wrong, but also what we have left undone. With respect to those omissions, serious questions have been raised about whether we have, consciously or unconsciously, developed a culture of conflict avoidance within the governing structures of the ACNA. These questions cannot be brushed aside. They require careful, honest examination in the light of Christ.

Walking in the light, therefore, demands more than general statements of regret or goodwill. It requires concrete action. Many have called for an independent, third-party investigation into how discipline, particularly discipline involving clergy and bishops, was administered over the past decade and more. I concur with that assessment. We need an investigation with broad latitude, one that can examine how complaints against bishops were received, processed, and adjudicated, and how decisions were made at each stage of that process.

Without such an investigation, we cannot know with clarity and confidence where repentance is required. An independent review, conducted with sufficient scope and authority, would allow us to identify failures, acknowledge them honestly, and resolve to walk differently in the future. Only then can repentance bear the fruit of reform and renewed trust.

Some have rightly observed that these challenges do not concern bishops alone. The health of the Church depends on the shared responsibility of bishops, clergy, and laity, working together in a conciliar manner. At the same time, bishops bear a unique responsibility for the doctrine, discipline, faith and order of the Church. Questions of church governance are never merely procedural. They are matters that require Biblical, spiritual and moral integrity.

History teaches us this lesson with sobering clarity. Unrepentant and undisciplined bishops were not an accidental feature of the crises that fractured the Anglican Communion in recent decades; they were a defining element of those crises and of the realignments that followed. When episcopal authority is insufficiently accountable, the consequences are borne by the whole Church.

These realities underscore the importance of ongoing formation in canon law and ecclesial governance. The principles of canon law common to the churches of the Anglican Communion articulate not only structures and processes, but also the theological convictions that undergird authority, accountability, and decision-making. Bishops are called to guard the faith of the Church, but they do so within systems of mutual responsibility and restraint. These are the very principles and systems we will review in the course on Anglican Polity and Canon law in January sponsored by Trinity Anglican Seminary and the Anglican Center for Theology and Formation. More information on that can be found here.

There is no single solution to the challenges presently facing the ACNA. Structural reform will be necessary, which is why the ongoing public review and revision of our disciplinary canons is so important. (You can find all the latest updates on the Title IV review on the ACNA page). But structures alone are not enough. Renewal will also require a renewed commitment by bishops, clergy, and laity to walk together in the light, speaking the truth in love and submitting ourselves to the searching light of Christ.

I am aware that in a few hours the Court for the Trial of a Bishop in the Ruch case will issue its opinion. It is likely that the opinion of the court will raise exactly the questions which require the independent third-party investigation needed for specific repentance, resolve, and reformation by all leaders within our dioceses and the ACNA. As we look ahead, may we continue to pray for one another. May we have the courage to repent specifically, the humility to listen carefully, and the resolve to pursue what is good and godly. And may all our efforts serve the greater purpose of advancing the mission entrusted to us: sharing the transforming love of Jesus Christ with a world desperately in need of his grace.