The Ol' Golden Rule Test

Bad ACNA Advice, Tribalism as a Drug, & a Film Recommendation

Dear Friends,

You may have heard the news that the newly elected Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), Steve Wood, has been accused of misconduct. The news broke in the Washington Post. The headline: “U.S. Anglican Church archbishop accused of sexual misconduct, abuse of power.”

Oh dear, I thought. Here we go again.

I am absolutely open-minded about the possibility that Archbishop Wood is a scoundrel—a womanizer, a plagiarist, embezzler, and abusive to his subordinates. After all, I don’t know the man. I mean, a PCA pastor was just arrested in a prostitution sting, so this kind of thing is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Then I read the story, and I confess that I am a bit underwhelmed. A woman says that he once made a move that she interpreted as him wanting to kiss her. That is definitely worth investigating and figuring out what went on there. A massive sex scandal worthy of the breathless headline, it is not (certainly not yet). A man (apparently a disgruntled priest) accused him of plagiarizing his sermons, with no evidence as-yet supplied. Someone accused him of misusing a pickup truck owned by the church, and someone says he once “cussed” at subordinates.

Investigate, by all means. I am not trying to minimize the accusations. They are accusations and as such they deserve a hearing. But I want to talk about the unsolicited “advice” given to the ACNA by New Testament scholar (and Anglican) Scot McKnight. On his Substack, he writes.

What can the leaders in ACNA do? Here are some suggestions:

First, begin by believing those who bring forth the allegations. Believe the whistleblowers. I give honor to Claire Buxton for coming forward. I give honor to Rob Sturdy and Hamilton Smith for standing up for justice.

Step one: believe the accusers.

Second, examine the allegations immediately and quickly enough to discern if there is credibility and as soon as one does (and this should not take more than a day or two) put the priest on administrative leave.

Step two: investigate the credibility of the allegations.

Maybe it takes a special kind of intellectual to follow this logic, but things are already backwards. If your first step is “believe the accusers,” I’m not sure why you’re bothering to then assess their credibility. Just for show, maybe?

Third, block the culture and process that give bishops the power to evaluate and judge fellow bishops. I give a mundane illustration. In the WNBA when a coach calls for a replay, the three referees on the floor go to the sideline and often in an endless display of not knowing evaluate whether their fellow ref made a bad call. This is itself a bad call. The replay review, to be transparent and honest and disinterested, must be independent. I have no confidence that bishops, who are mostly friends, will evaluate a fellow bishop impartially. Immediately find an independent review. If ACNA does not do this, it will more often than not both look biased and be biased.

Step three, make sure the investigators are independent and neutral. How they can be independent and neutral and “disinterested” (!) when their first step was to “believe the accusers” is beyond me. Also, having a group of bishops who “have the power to evaluate and judge fellow bishops” is why you have a denomination in the first place. Following this advice just outsources all church polity to some para-church organization that itself has no accountability.

Fourth, include victims, victim advocates, victim-informed, and victim-sensitive persons on any evaluation of the accused. If the bishops are against this they are revealing they want the power and not necessarily what is right and just. The opponents of independent review and victim-sensitive evaluators are a serious problem in all church-based judgments. The bishops need to be asked why their system is so internal and so opposed to external review.

Step four, make sure to stack any investigative body with people sympathetic to the accusers, and if anyone objects that means they’re only interested in power, not what is right and just. This is what ensures a “neutral” and “independent” investigation, or something.

Fifth, all communications from ACNA, its bishops, and its priests must learn to center the communication around victims and not around the accused. I have not seen one that centers the victims. Most have a word or two of empathy but after that it’s all about protecting the system. There’s a very easy way to do this right: have victims or victim-sensitive people who read over all communications. Give them veto power. Give them the power to evaluate, suggest, and amend.

Step five, let the allies and sympathizers of the accusers monitor and have veto power over all communications to make sure everything is “centered” on the “victims.”

This is the way to properly ensure that Archbishop Wood gets a really fair and objective shake. Thinks … NOBODY.

This is a postmodern, everything-is-about-power-dynamics theory of justice, and I find it disgraceful and the opposite of justice. It is sinful partiality from the get-go. Notice—really, I want you to go back and read it and look—how he never talks about the “accusers” versus the “accused.” From the very start it is “victims” versus the “accused.” The process must include “victims, victim advocates, victim-informed, and victim-sensitive persons.” Communications must be “centered” around the “victims and not around the accused.”

I wonder if he even realizes he is doing this, and I honestly have a very difficult time believing he does. It has to be a tic picked up hanging around in too many academic faculty lounges. It is either that or he’s a person of bad faith because he’s already predetermined the outcome at step one. Making an accusation makes you a “victim” and a “whistleblower” to be “honored” and “believed” and entitles you to have your advocates run the investigation and to control all communications and the public narrative. Just imagine the sort of, well, power that confers, if you’re interested in actual power differentials. I’ve seen this exact sort of thing play out in real life. Trust me, it doesn’t end with justice or “shalom.”

We don’t need to go into all the biblical principles this unsolicited “advice” violates. We can just give it the ol’ “Golden Rule” test by considering a horrific hypothetical:

A young female undergraduate walks into the Dean’s office: “Sir, I’m here to report that Professor McKnight just tried to kiss me in his office.”

Now follow his steps to the letter. He’s cool with that, right?

Not. In. A. Million. Years.

---

Last week’s Square Inch Newsletter, “Trump Estrangement Syndrome” seemed to resonate with a great number of you. On the same day, Jonah Goldberg’s G-File covered similar territory concerning tribalism and its causes, and some of it is really worth sharing with you:

The trouble with the quest for meaning is that at its core, meaning is a binary star. We all want to be recognized as an individual, a unique person worthy of admiration. But we also want to belong, to be on a team, part of a community. The tribalism Orwell called nationalism is like a synthetic drug that offers a cheap substitute for the real thing. The cause substitutes for community, and one’s performative loyalty to the cause substitutes for individuality. Being the most committed to MAGA, or the Resistance, or Communism, Nationalism, Fascism, Feminism, This-ism or That-ism, scratches the itch for individual recognition while the “ism” fills the community-shaped hole in your soul.

The problem is that this methadone of meaning can’t really do the job. The high doesn’t last. So, like addicts are so wont to do, they up the dosage. And, like the addict who eventually ruins relationships, steals from his family, and is lost in pursuit of one thing over every other thing, political addicts lose their humanity, too.

A very illuminating analogy, and I recommend reading the whole thing (and subscribing!).

---