Diocesan officials announced earlier today that former Diocese of California bishop Marc Andrus has been suspended from ministry as a result of allegations of an inappropriate relationship with an adult while serving as bishop diocesan. The move illustrates the denomination’s dated approach to ethics and clergy discipline.
The suspension was issued by the presiding bishop’s delegate, the Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, as part of a Title IV proceeding, which established that the underlying claims were credible.
While we fully support the decision to suspend Andrus, Anglican Watch also believes the move underscores the problems with Title IV and its implementation at the national level:
- There are numerous clergy out there who engage in criminal conduct but they face neither suspension nor consequences. For example, we have covered the felonious perjury of Episcopal priest Bob Malm, yet he continues in active ministry—despite requests even from the Survivors Network of Persons Abused by Priests that the church act against him. Similarly, the Diocese of Newark shrugged off alcohol abuse by Fr. Bill Allport, including allegations of driving church vehicles under the influence. That begs the question: Why does everyone foam at the mouth over an affair, yet they ignore criminal conduct? (Not that an affair is acceptable conduct, but as between felony criminal conduct and what is likely a consensual affair, we believe the felony can and should be the priority.)
- The denomination appears unwilling to discipline conservative bishops. Specifically, for more than two years now, national intake officer Barb Kempf and other church officials — including Bishop Mary Gray-Reeves, who serves as presiding bishop-designate in Title IV matters involving bishops — have ignored the two Title IV complaints filed against Bishop George Sumner, who engaged in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment by Episcopal priest Douglas Anderson. (For the record, we have contacted Barb Kempf repeatedly, and have forwarded our concerns to Gray-Reeves.)
- True abuse, as we see in the Santosh Marray case, who has abused clergy under his care, threatened them, bullied them, and violated Title IV confidentiality, goes to conciliation, which is not likely to be successful given Marray’s seeming narcissistic tendencies. Yet Andrus has a fling and it’s all hands to battle stations. How does that work? Again, we in no way wish to minimize Andrus’ seeming extramarital activities, but abuse and criminal conduct also should warrant immediate suspension.
In short, the Episcopal Church is stuck in a 1950s timewarp, in which sex is the big bad bugbear, but abuse, criminal conduct, and more is ignored as “interpersonal conflict.”
For the record, the Episcopal Church needs to treat all abuse as worthy of a vigorous Title IV response. And any clergyperson subject to credible claims of criminal conduct needs to be
Barbara Kempf and TEC don’t seem to care that Bishop Lucinda Ashby had a registered sex offender in parish leadership in the neighboring Diocese of El Camino Real. The standards seem to applied inconsistently.
This hate-filled, judgemental, arrogant comment is BS!
Stating facts is hate-filled?
https://www.anglicanwatch.com/outrageous-corrupt-episcopal-bishop-lucinda-ashby-and-diocese-of-el-camino-real-ignore-sex-offender/?amp=1
Agree. OP’s focus should be on protecting children, not her emotional reaction to criticism of the denomination.
Marc Andrus loved me, this I know – for he always told me so – little ones to him belong – we are weak while he is strong.
Yes, Marc Andrus loves me. Yes, Marc Andrus loves me. Yes, Marc Andrus loves me – and he told me so.
The love bombing in TEC is an issue. Bishops and clergy sign proclamations denouncing sexism. They sign proclamations denouncing racism. They pride themselves on their LGBTQ “inclusivity.” The give us sermons when they tell us that the care about us and love us.
They love us – until they love others too much . . . (like their paramours).
Bishop Marc Andrus is an example of the dysfunction in the Episcopal Church: idolatry towards a religious leader/parent figure, interpersonal conflict with clergy and parishioners, inappropriately close relationships with clergy and members with whom he agrees – favoritism – very similar to grooming behavior with young people – yet he is doing it with adults, parishioners, and clergy.
Bishop Andrus is similar to a dysfunctional choir director – demanding – charming – influential with people one on one –
And then he goes too far – bedding or having an “inappropriate relationship.” He was supposed to be part of our moral compass – instead – he found someone outside of his marriage.
This news is going to significantly impact parishioners in the Diocese of California. It is deeply embarrassing.