Presiding bishop Sean Rowe’s personnel decisions make us hopeful for the future

On November 2, 2024, the Episcopal Church installed Bishop Sean Rowe for a nine-year term as the denomination’s presiding bishop. Shortly afterward, Rowe made a series of personnel and related announcements, which Anglican Watch believes portend good news for the church. This post discusses these announcements and several related topics, with an emphasis on clergy discipline, the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons, and good governance.

Among the announcements are two that we find particularly newsworthy in light of our interest in governance and accountability:

Bishop Todd Ousley leaves later this year

The bishop for pastoral development, Todd Ousley, departs later this year. We believe Ousley’s departure is long overdue for several reasons, including his ongoing refusal to follow the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons. Details:

1. Ousley repeatedly brushed off allegations of illegal conduct by bishops and priests.Specific cases include the alleged rape of a boy by Episcopal priest Richard Losch, the subsequent cover-up by the Dioceses of Alabama and Massachusetts, and criminal conduct by Episcopal priest Robert Malm, which was covered up by bishops Alan Gates, Shannon Johnston, Jennifer Brooke-Davidson, and Susan Goff.
2. Ousley often acted outside the scope of his authority under the canons by attempting to investigate disciplinary complaints against bishops at intake. However, the canons and related Title IV training materials only provide that the intake officer may “seek to understand the matter complained of.” An intake officer should not seek to determine veracity or factual accuracy at intake.
3. Ousley repeatedly failed to provide the “pastoral response” required in all Title IV cases and never attempted to develop any capacity to offer a pastoral response when someone filed a Title IV complaint.
4. Ousley typically dismissed complaints when a bishop simply ignored Title IV or dismissed a complaint out of hand. Specific bishops for which this happened include Paula Clark, Jennifer Brooke Davidson, Alan Gates, Susan Goff, Shannon Johnston, Chilton Knudsen, and others. Why even bother with Title IV if bishops are free to ignore its provisions or act in bad faith? The mere fact that a bishop sends a “notice of dismissal” does not mean that the bishop followed Title IV or even that s/he attempted to do so.
5. Ousley, in his role as lead for the Office of Pastoral Development, taught bishops and others that the presiding bishop cannot tell other bishops what to do. This claim is at express variance with the Title IV canons. While we recognize that the presiding bishop must exercise prudential authority, it must be deployed when the alternative results in harm to the church or others.
6. Ousley’s handling of the Whayne Hougland debacle, in which the injured dioceses were looted of resources to provide a golden parachute to an adulterous bishop, was nothing short of shocking. Specifically, the national church focused all its time and attention on caring for Hougland while doing nothing for the dioceses in question. The icing on the cake was when Ousley lauded the debacle as an example of Title IV at its finest. What the actual hell?

Rebecca Wilson, a partner in Canticle Communications, comes on as Rowe’s chief of strategy

Anglican Watch believes this is a wonderful move. We have worked with Wilson on various occasions and have found her to be fast, insightful, respectful, and adept at responding to difficult situations.

In addition, Wilson’s background in strategic communications, expertise in fundraising, and in-depth knowledge of the denomination acquired through representing multiple dioceses for their communications needs will be helpful in a denomination that too often just assumes the resources it requires will magically appear.

Further, Wilson understands that the myth about there being two responses to a perceived threat is just that: a myth. There actually are three:

1. Flight
2. Fight
3. Engagement

Regrettably, persons in the Episcopal Church too often respond to decline by perceiving any criticism, no matter how warranted, as a threat. Moreover, these same persons typically respond with passive-aggressive silence, which is invariably damaging to the church.

In our experience, Wilson understands the value of engagement, which, when possible, is the only path forward that will promote positive change.

The bottom line is that we could not be happier about Wilson’s collaboration with Sean Rowe and their potentially transformational role in the church.

Related announcements

In a move related to both of the above announcements, Rowe announced that the church will examine the role and structure of the Office of Pastoral Development, now headed by Ousley. That is wonderful news because we far too often see bishops who flail around following their consecration. Or, even worse, they attempt to “go it alone” and improvise governance as they go. Both are recipes for inferior outcomes and further church decline, especially since most bishops lack real-world HR, strategic planning, and organizational management experience.

In other words, we do not see that the Office of Pastoral Development, as currently configured, appropriately cares for bishops or other church members. Nor does it set church officials up for success.

Nor can we lose sight of the real human beings behind these issues; when leaders fail at governance or clergy discipline, the resulting harm to others and the church itself is often deep, lasting, and sometimes irreparable.

Need to examine Title IV implementation

Relatedly, we hope that a review of the Office of Pastoral Development’s functioning will address an issue not expressly mentioned in Rowe’s announcements: how the Title IV process works at a national level.

Specifically, we have a mixed response to Barbara Kempf’s deployment as the intake officer for bishops and believe the issue warrants further time and attention by church leaders.

On the one hand, Kempf is a vast improvement over Todd Ousley in the role of Title IV intake officer for bishops. As near as we can tell, Ousley’s only real role in Title IV was to protect members of the Pointy Hats Club, aka fellow bishops, whether by ignoring complaints, distorting the complaint so as to be able to brush it off, or worst case scenario, seeing the complaint as an opportunity to pay off the bishop’s mortgage, a la Whayne Hougland.

On the other hand, even under Kempf, some complaints have now been pending for more than two years without even an initial review. Relatedly, complainants tell us they find Kempf to be very proper and lawyerly but lacking in pastoral empathy.

Moreover, decisions from the Disciplinary Board for Bishops are still mixed a mixed bag. For example, recent correspondence from the board instructs complainants to treat their complaint and the outcome of their Title IV complaints as confidential.

These instructions are false, abusive, and lacking in transparency. The provisions of Title IV expressly apply only to clergy, and it is inherently abusive to tell those hurt by the church that they cannot discuss their situations. Moreover, as Christians, we are called upon to disclose wrongdoing in the church.

Thus, we envision a potential opportunity for Kempf and the Disciplinary Board of Bishops to work together to ensure they understand and fully comply with the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons. Simply put, no one benefits when the canons are ignored, or the Disciplinary Board decides to fly by the seat of their collective pants.

Apropos confidentiality, the Disciplinary Board should tell complainants that it is their choice to disclose. If, however, a complainant chooses to disclose, the Disciplinary Board should ensure that the complainant understands the potential repercussions, which include the likelihood of ostracism and other retaliatory behavior by church members.

Of course, confidentiality also prevents victims from comparing notes, which is not a positive outcome. In our experience, problem clergy often are the subject of myriad complaints, which are then brushed off by judicatories.

That’s bad enough, but when a pattern of misconduct, followed by evasion and cover-up emerges, disclosure of prior allegations allows church members to ask difficult questions about the situation. (We also note that if the complainant is not a church member or has left the church, it is profoundly arrogant for the church to think it can instruct the complainant to do anything, including keeping their complaint confidential.) Thus, the church should not attempt, without authority, to make these decisions for complainants.

As to the issue we previously identified of timeliness, we think it is fair to conclude that Kempf lacks adequate resources to do her job. Nor does the Disciplinary Board yet have the training and resources it needs to make decisions correctly, despite being much better under current chair Bishop Nicholas Knisely than it was under the corrupt leadership of Chilton Knudsen. (Knudsen even brushes off allegations of criminal conduct and cover-up by bishops. If these aren’t actionable under Title IV, it’s time for all involved join the ELCA and start over.)

Perhaps the best solution would be to have Kempf act as a liaison, serving as a bridge between an outside, independent ethics or legal firm and the church hierarchy. This arrangement would further immunize the Title IV process from the political winds that swirl through Church Center, the denomination’s headquarters, while allowing for timely complaint processing. Moreover, it would enable Kempf to coordinate a more effective pastoral response, which, while getting better in recent cases, still leaves room for improvement. Nor should we conclude that outsourcing the role of intake officer necessarily involves massive expenditures; we know several well-qualified attorneys who would either charge nominal rates or serve for free.

Of course, outsourcing Title IV intake isn’t the only possible outcome. There are many additional positive approaches that the church could take to these issues that would help Kempf be successful in her job, while improving church discipline for all parties. Our main goal here is to encourage thoughtful discussion around these topics, while focusing on a faster, less irrational Title IV process that aligns with the actual language of the canons.

Need for Title IV training

Relatedly, we note that Title IV proficiency is a problem at every level in the church that must be addressed.

Most importantly, intake officers and judicatories too often view the process as adversarial, or one in which the goal is to either give the respondent a good drubbing or send the complainant packing. This binary thinking overlooks the fact that the goal of Title IV is health, accountability, and reconciliation.

Moreover, this perspective fails to recognize that the complainant is inviting the church to address a problem versus a situation in which the complainant simply leaves the denomination in a snit, without telling anyone the reasons for their departure. The latter does nothing to help the church live into its mission.

In other words, Title IV is best viewed not so much as clergy discipline, but as a blessing and a safety valve that allows the church to address minor issues before they become major problems. Thus, a robust pastoral response, even in cases that are dismissed, could save all involved time, money, and trauma. Such a response may involve a pastoral direction, guidance to the respondent, or even a written warning that future incidents by the respondent will result in formal disciplinary action.

In other words, a Title IV complaint is, in many ways, a gift from the complainant and a chance for the church to model the radical love and inclusion it claims to offer. Yet we far too often see complainants derided as instigators, troublemakers, or, in the case of Bishop Santosh Marray, minions of Satan. (Yes, while not an exact quote, Marray actually said that, in addition to violating the confidentiality that is imposed upon him as clergy under Title IV.)

Thus, effective Title IV training would afford church leaders an understanding of the labyrinthine mechanics of Title IV and, more importantly, a recognition of the value of an effective Title IV process.

Non-Title IV solutions

Another issue implicit in Rowe’s announcement is the need for the Episcopal Church to explore options for clergy discipline outside of Title IV. Indeed, church musicians have long noted that absent rape, pillage, and plunder by the respondent, Title IV rarely solves problems. Too often, the “weighty and material” clause in the canons means judicatories typically ignore day-to-day problems, even when the issues involve harassment, criminal conduct, or other serious matters. After all, a judicatory who doesn’t feel like acting can claim just about anything fails the test of materiality, even when it involves criminal activity. Indeed, we have written documentation of multiple cases in which this has happened.

Indeed, where else but the Episcopal Church can a claim of criminal conduct or physical assault get brushed off as inconsequential? A for-profit organization would typically deal with these issues in a matter of hours or, at most, a few days, and the result would be the departure of the perpetrator in short order. Yet the Episcopal Church routinely sidelines complaints about these issues for years at a time, only to brush the matter off when it finally comes up for “consideration.”

We also note that judicatories’ track records regarding mandatory reporting of child abuse are still grim. Whether it’s Chilton Knudsen’s fabrication about reporting child sexual abuse, which resulted in a $750,000 insurance payout, or the ongoing cover-up of the allegations involving Richard Losch and child rape, the church more often than not handles even the most egregious misconduct badly while failing to comply with legal requirements. “We investigated, and didn’t see any reason to notify law enforcement,” is the refrain. But mandatory reporting is just that, mandatory, and does not involve an investigation by church officials, who typically lack even rudimentary training for these tasks.

Thus, we believe guidelines for an HR response and potential immediate referral to law enforcement are appropriate when complaints involve sexual harassment, assault, criminal activity, or other serious misconduct. We hope that these issues can be considered in the context of assessing the role and function of the Office of Pastoral Development, which right now appears to cause more harm than good.

The role of CPG

There is a related topic that should be on the table in any discussion about restructuring the Episcopal Church’s national offices which is aligning the church’s values with the role of the church’s captive insurance carrier, the Church Pension Group, or CPG.

As the holder of a huge pile of cash, CPG far too often acts in ways that are inconsistent with the church’s mission.

On the one hand, CPG does little to insist that insureds adhere to church canons. Thus, we see CPG insuring parish-level officers who are not actually church members or parishes that fail to meet even the most basic standards of good governance. As a result, CPG incurs a higher level of risk than would be appropriate for a for-profit insurer, while promoting a culture of indifference to good governance.

On the other hand, when faced with a serious claim, such as allegations of criminal conduct by a clergyperson, CPG typically acts like the Roman church of yore, which is to deny, avoid, obfuscate, drag out litigation, and, if all else fails, settle for the smallest amount possible. This approach traumatizes victims, savages relationships, and causes lasting reputational harm to all involved. In short, the resulting outcomes run contrary to the best interests of the church and its people — the same constituencies that CPG claims to serve.

Thus, a worthy goal for Rowe and his new leadership team will be to help CPG move into a role where its primary objective is to solve problems, heal victims, and work for rapid resolution of complaints. Indeed, we have seen multiple cases in which matters have gone to litigation and cost CPG tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees when all that was needed was for someone to mediate an apology and restitution. (Most attorneys have seen this paradigm repeatedly, where all the client wants is to be treated with respect, but the case winds up going into years of litigation because the defense was not smart enough to immediately offer settlement options.)

So, we hope that CPG under Rowe will operate under an ethics-first business model while continuing to recognize its fiduciary obligation to be a faithful steward of the resources entrusted to it. Simply put, the two objectives are not inconsistent, for well-run, successful organizations inevitably bring an ethical worldview to all their decisions.

Inviting truth-tellers to the table

Relatedly, there’s another issue out there that warrants scrutiny, and that is the role of truth-tellers in the church.

Far too often treated as spawns of Satan, truth-tellers fill a vital role in the church, which is calling it to accountability. Thus, rather than rejecting truth-tellers as “angry” and “disgruntled,” the church would be far better off to engage these individuals and learn from their experiences.

By definition, this would require both a change in mindset — which is to treat the truth as a valuable commodity — and organizational changes, like providing a formal mechanism to provide feedback or report ethics concerns without getting run through the buzzsaw of a formal Title IV process.

Indeed, the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. Thus, those who take the time to criticize the church are often, even after leaving the church, fond of the denomination and wish it well, They also typically bring a perspective that cannot be learned via any other means except by being hurt by the church.

In fact, one of the best responses to abuse we have ever seen is that of a bishop who invited a former church member to serve on a diocesan Title IV advisory committee. He did so with the full knowledge that her prior complaint that her priest had sexually abused her had been woefully mishandled, resulting in her decision to leave the church.

As a result, the diocese obtained much-needed insight into the trauma that victims of abuse experience, even though the ultimate outcome did not heal the relationship with the former church member. Indeed, one senior diocesan official said later, “I had no idea. I thought we were good at handling abuse, but the very opposite is true.”

The bottom line

With Rowe’s installation, Anglican Watch is hopeful that the Episcopal Church will finally get its act together. For various reasons, not all pertaining to the skillsets of previous presiding bishops, the past 18 years have been painfully difficult. Many of the church’s injuries are self-inflicted.

That said, Rowe is adept at organizational management and dynamics, and he clearly understands the need for Title IV reform. These issues are key to the denomination’s survival as anything other than an oversized trust fund and some real estate holdings, and we very much hope that Rowe will be successful.

Indeed, there is no reason to have an episcopacy or a hierarchy if they cannot ensure mission integrity, effective governance, and meaningful priorities. The days when corporate America’s ethics standards were superior to those of the denomination need to end; the church cannot claim to be an arbiter of social justice when its own power structures are often, at best, inept and, at worst, corrupt.