As we move into 2025 and a new era of politics in Washington, folks at Anglican Watch were heartened to read Virginia Bishop Mark Stevenson’s message this morning about these issues. At the same time, we have to ask if his comments will lead to meaningful action or if they are yet another layer of whitewash in a morally bankrupt denomination.
What did he say?
In relevant portion, here’s what Bishop Stevenson said:
As Bishop and chief pastor of the Diocese of Virginia, I feel led to be direct about a couple of things in the days before us: First, every human being will be respected in our churches, regardless of race, creed, gender expression, nationality, or in any other category or classification of humanity. Every human being will be respected from our pulpits, in our pews, and through our ministries. Rhetoric in the public square that dehumanizes any person or group of people, or is designed to strike fear in people’s hearts, is contrary to the gospel and is to be called out as such.
Further, we are to remember that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were themselves refugees (see Matthew 2:13ff), fleeing for their lives for a season. And, as Jesus points out without equivocation in Matthew 25, how we treat the stranger and those in need has a direct bearing on our relationship with God in heaven. Given these things, we must provide safety to the fearful and stand boldly against tyranny of speech or action.
Why are we concerned?
Sounds good, right? So why are we concerned?
We’re concerned because, too often, the Episcopal Church is a denomination of policies and paper rather than one of action. Thus, we fear that these comments are the outcome themselves rather than the beginning of a process of engagement.
To be clear, we’re far from alone in expressing these concerns.
For example, the Episcopal Church has been discussing substance abuse and impaired leadership since at least 1979, when the General Convention passed the first in a continuing series of resolutions. In true Episcopal fashion, these resolutions are masterpieces of weasel wording:
- “request dioceses to establish committees and policies related to alcoholism and other drug abuse”
- “be encouraged to promote the use…” (1988-C036).
- “encourage the efforts of…” (1991-D171).
- “make strong efforts to develop policies…” (2003-A123).
- “be encouraged to raise awareness of recovery issues…” (2009-A078).
Indeed, the authors of the Heather Cooke investigatory report, which examined the church’s ongoing failure to address impairment, said of these resolutions:
“But these resolutions do not reflect the urgency and necessity of a clear, informed, consistent, and church-wide response to impairment. Without built-in accountability, authority, strongly expressed values, and consequences for inaction, these kinds of resolutions have proven to be ineffective.” (Emphases added.)
Yeah, no kidding.
Tellingly, the Episcopal Church released the Heather Cooke report in 2017, but eight years later, nothing has changed. In fact, when Bishop Carlye Hughes finally approached impaired priest Bill Allport about his issues, she came out of the relevant discussions saying, “Well, he says he’s not an alcoholic.” Has anyone let Hughes in on the fact that alcoholism is a disease of deception, in which even the victim lies to himself? Or do they not teach that in seminary? Bishop’s college?
Relatedly, the Cooke report identified denial, clericalism, perceived organizational loyalty, interpersonal relationships, the independence of parishes and dioceses, and fear of an ineffective system of governance in the Episcopal Church as primary reasons nothing gets done about impairment — even as Allport allegedly was seen driving church vehicles while intoxicated.
In other words, even when it comes to DUI and other major threats to the well-being of others, the Episcopal Church talks a good game. Indeed, the denomination loves to discuss things? But there is absolutely zero urgency or accountability.
The devil is in the details
So, what does this context of denial, avoidance, and evasion mean for the positive thoughts expressed in +Stevenson’s letter?
First, we have real doubts about the ability of any diocese to affect change at the parish level.
On the one hand, the bishop diocesan has no direct canonical authority to discipline laity—a fact many bishops use to avoid dealing with issues on the parish level.
On the other hand, bishops have plenty they can do to address egregious behavior — at least when they wish to do so. For example, two dioceses, Bethlehem and Pennsylvania, barred convicted pedophile Bernard Kenneth Schade from all churches in those dioceses via a pastoral directive.
In relevant part, the pastoral directive issued by the Diocese of Bethlehem reads:
Pastoral Direction – The terms of the Pastoral Direction are as follows:
1. You shall send a notice to Bernard Kenneth Schade at 300 Marshalls Creek Road, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18302 by both certified mail, return receipt requested and by regular mail notifying Mr. Schade he is not permitted, licensed, or privileged to be upon your parish’s church property or to enter or remain in any of the parish buildings or structures.
2. You shall provide a copy of the correspondence accomplishing this notification to my office within 48 hours of the mailing of the notice.
3. You shall provide a copy of Mr. Schade’s Megan’s Law Public Report to leaders within your parish with directions to immediately report Mr. Schade’s presence to the police for purposes of initiating defiant trespass criminal charges against him, should he come upon your church property.
4. Should he appear at your parish under no circumstances will Mr. Schade be permitted to remain upon your parish property or within any parish buildings or structures without direct one on one supervision. Should Mr. Schade refuse to leave the property after being instructed to do so, law enforcement authorities should be contacted immediately, and parish staff or volunteers should remain vigilant and avoid confrontation until authorities arrive.
These actions are not optional. This is a Pastoral Direction issued by your Bishop, and compliance with the direction is required by the canons of the church.
I am certain you understand both the rarity of this action and the importance of this pastoral directive in safeguarding our parishes and particularly our most vulnerable members.” (emphases added.)
From the language of this pastoral directive, we see two issues:
- How rarely Episcopal bishops use their authority under church canons to “resist injustice and oppression.”
- How frequently Episcopal clergy feel free to ignore church canons.
There’s also an added wrinkle: How can a bishop insist that priests follow church canons when they all too often ignore the same canons?
Examples are legion, but whether it is the blind eye judicatories turn to parishes that offer open communion or the almost universal disregard by Episcopal bishops of the provisions of the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons (including the Office of Presiding Bishop), the bottom line is the church picks and chooses which canons it wants to follow all the time.
In other words, chances are thin at best that Stevenson — or any of the other bishops who are rightly speaking out against injustice and oppression — will actually do something about it if, for example, a person, to borrow +Stevenson’s phrase, “in our pews” is told they are unwelcome by a priest.
Our second concern involves holding laity accountable.
To be blunt, there’s zero chance that the Episcopal bishops will do anything about it if the perpetrator is laity. Indeed, right now, we struggle to hold bishops accountable when they ignore the rape of children, the sexual harassment of adult women, and criminal conduct by clergy.
Indeed, there are myriad examples of laity who behave illegally.
Jeffery Chiow is an attorney for an Episcopal parish in Northern Virginia who repeatedly submitted fraudulent pleadings to the Virginia courts containing outright fabrications, including references to an imaginary church shooting at an equally imaginary city in Texas.
These sorts of issues are enough to disbar Rudy Guliani, but since the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia was not a direct victim, there’s zero chance that anyone at the Diocese will issue a pastoral directive telling the priests in question that they need to address Chiow’s criminal conduct.
Thus, a church member who, for example, distributes Christian nationalist handouts on church property will likely be ignored by both rector and bishop. Similarly, an usher who declines to seat someone due to their gender identity escapes accountability if their rector is conflict avoidant.
And to be clear: Bishop Stevenson has a clergy disciplinary case in front of him right now in which he has the opportunity to call out hatred and tyranny and speech and action. Yet he so far is choosing to say nothing to members of the parish in question on the basis that he doesn’t want to upset people within the parish.
So we think it’s fair to say that bishops, when called to move from the abstract to the specific, will decline to say or do anything to resist injustice and oppression.
Our third concern is that local vestries are likely to be every bit as ineffectual in dealing with hatred over the next four years as the church’s priests and bishops
In our experience, vestries are overwhelmingly comprised of sycophants and narcissists who rubber-stamp the wishes of the rector. This tendency is particularly pronounced when, as is often the case, the rector is a narcissist.
And yet, for years, bishops like Shannon Johnston, one of the great trainwrecks of the Episcopal Church, told most people who encountered bad behavior by their local clergyperson to discuss the matter with the wardens.
All we can say is that Johnston is delusional if he thinks most vestries have any say over their priests.
In closing
In closing, Anglican Watch remains ardently committed to freedom and democracy, including the right and obligation to speak out when confronted with injustice and oppression. We, therefore, support all those who oppose Christian nationalism and the oppression of others, especially when done in the name of God. But we have deep concerns about the willingness and, indeed, the ability of the denomination to lead on these issues when we see such corruption, lack of urgency, and lack of accountability in the Episcopal Church.
Leave a Reply