(Why WaPo and ACNA continue to emphasize these incidents did not occur during Wood’s archbishopric baffles; the issue here is moral and character, not when who did what.)I have too much experience with this kind of story not to have guiding lines of thinking.
Believe the victims as whistleblowers rarely lie; the accused will deny the allegations; there’s more to the story than is published; often more victims will come forward; the establishment will act to protect and to believe the priest/pastor; local congregations will fracture and fissure and sometimes fall apart; nearly all congregations will believe the pastor/priest and not the accuser/victim; spin will arise that confuses all over what actually happened; the establishment will gather round the priest/pastor and will rig the system against the victims; whistleblowers will suffer blow after blow that re-traumatize; the system will not show compassion and empathy; strategies will develop that favor one side and bias people against the other side; those in power will rig the system so independent investigators can be avoided. I could go on. Read A Church called Tov.
I was more than (happily) surprised with Andrew Gross: “Unfortunately, the problems at the highest levels of the ACNA are deeper, wider and more entrenched than many of its own parishioners realize,” said Andrew Gross, an Anglican priest who was the Anglican Church’s communications director from 2013 until early this year. “The ACNA has never before had to deal with serious allegations of misconduct by the archbishop. This is a crisis without precedent, and how these concerns are handled will determine the future trajectory of the denomination and its credibility.” I was mocked by the establishment for saying much the same when the Stewart Ruch/Church of the Rez story first broke. Gross is right: Not only has ACNA bungled the Ruch story but they are set up to bungle this one too. What they do will determine ACNA’s future.
