Bishop Edgar described the complainants as “credible and trustworthy” and joined those urging the senior bishops to impose an inhibition, noting that “an inhibition makes no judgment as to guilt or innocence … Rather, it is an acknowledgement that continued ministry in the face of serious charges further damages the reputation of the Church.” The diocesan Standing Committee followed on 14 November with a letter of its own standing with the bishop and the complainants and urging the College to inhibit Wood.
The South Carolina position hardened with experience. On 24 March 2026, Bishop Edgar and the ADOSC Standing Committee wrote formally to the ACNA Executive Committee demanding transparency. The letter, occasioned by concerns arising from the December 2025 acquittal of Bishop Stewart Ruch (a separate ACNA trial in which the court found that the prosecution had not met its evidentiary burden, set out specific demands:
- That “the standard of avoiding any appearance of impropriety” be upheld among all provincial staff in pending and future proceedings;
- That those involved in allowing a court member in the Ruch trial to access prosecution files without the prosecutors’ knowledge or consent be recused from all future disciplinary proceedings, “particularly those involving Archbishop Wood”;
- That a complete transcript of trial and pretrial proceedings, including unedited video or audio, be released;
- That all motions, court rulings, and the three pretrial investigations be made public;
- That the identity and engagement letter of any investigator be disclosed, with appropriate confidentiality protections for victims.
“Those who would deny a public response to valid questions,” the diocese warned, “insisting the province is best served by withholding answers — do so at the risk of destabilizing the very foundation on which their authority rests.” Edgar added: “Lack of trust and mutual suspicion erode our communion and weaken our witness to a watching world. But our communion and witness are strengthened by a commitment to transparency and truth that is above reproach.”
That earlier framing places the present moment in unusually sharp relief. South Carolina has consistently asked for procedural rigour, transparency, and a posture of belief toward the complainants. Bishop Ashey’s lectures — delivered to a general audience the week before a dispositive motion was heard in the trial of his client-of-conscience — were perceived by some bishops as cutting in the opposite direction: prejudging the verdict, attributing improper motives to colleagues, and casting complainants as merely terminated employees.
Read as a whole, the 8 May letter is more than a routine clarification. It is a public acknowledgement, on the record, that:
- No bishops have signed the presentment, contrary to impressions Bishop Ashey himself helped create;
- The five senior diocesan bishops who joined Dean Dobbs’s inhibition did so on the merits, not under social-media pressure;
- The Title IV revisions now before the College are being deliberated on their substance, not from institutional self-protection;
- Predictions of “exoneration” have no proper place in public commentary about a pending bishop’s trial;
- The complainants were not, as Ashey had suggested, simply “terminated employees”;
- His role with Archbishop Wood is volunteer and personal, not provincial, and any judgment on the Archbishop’s compliance with the inhibition belongs to the Dean and the College.
Ashey’s renewed offer to recuse himself from the College of Bishops “until after all procedures with regards to Archbishop Wood are concluded” is significant. He had made the same offer earlier and was declined; the public revival of the offer effectively returns the question to Dean Dobbs and to a College that, in the weeks since the lectures, has had to navigate its own discomfort with the optics of one of its members serving as personal counsel to an accused archbishop while continuing to sit and vote among those who will, in due course, receive the Court’s verdict.
What the letter does not address is the substantive accusation, attributed to Bishop Ashey in The Living Church‘s reporting, that “the province did not forward all of the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the court.” If that claim is maintained, it sits uneasily alongside the seven items Bishop Ashey did withdraw. If it is not, it deserves its own clarification.
Read it all.
