Time for Action: Part 02, The Bishop’s Council of the Upper Midwest
Time for Action is a series of posts detailing ACNAtoo’s July 15 open letter to Archbishop Foley Beach,
expanding on the action items listed and providing background regarding why they are of paramount importance and continue to deserve a public response.
Our July 15 open letter included two action items related to the Bishop’s Council in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest:
We ask that the Bishop’s Council be immediately suspended from ongoing oversight of and decision-making for the Upper Midwest Diocese until their actions and involvement in this matter have been reviewed by an independent, third party investigator.
We ask that the requested review of UMD leadership structures specifically include the UMD Constitution and Canons, which deviate from Anglican norms and provide no real accountability or checks on the Bishop’s power as would a traditional, elected Standing Committee.
First, Bp. Ruch claimed to have apprised his Bishop’s Council of his decisions regarding the survivors and further claimed that they fully supported those decisions. If Bp. Ruch deliberately deceived his own Council, this raises serious questions about the inability of the Council to hold Bp. Ruch accountable. If Bp. Ruch truthfully informed his Council, then they are complicit in the egregious mishandling of survivors’ allegations.
While we are encouraged to see that many members of the Bishop’s Council have stepped aside, we are still deeply troubled to see that family and close friends of Bp. Ruch like Fr. Christian Ruch and Fr. Eirik Olsen were simply replaced with other close supporters. The current chair of the Bishop’s Council, Alex Cameron, is a close associate of Bp. Ruch, Fr. Keith Hartsell, and many others implicated in current allegations. One of the current Bishop’s Council members is still anonymous, which is concerning. It is reasonable that many would distrust such replacements.
While subsidiarity would typically be the driving impetus for the actions of the Bishop’s Council, the particular nature of this crisis demands an emergency pivot to respond with truth, transparency, and a desire for things to be put right. It is difficult to see how that can be done with the current Bishop’s Council operating in Bp. Ruch’s place.
Second, and most importantly, the UMD Bishop’s Council deviates in significant ways from standard Anglican polity and does not provide the necessary accountability of a separate and elected Standing Committee. This is particularly important given that Church of the Resurrection and the UMD have a long-standing history of consolidating power within a small group of people.
In a typical diocese, the Synod (a gathering of representatives from every parish in the diocese, along with the bishop) comes together to elect new officers to the Standing Committee, the board of directors for the diocese. The laity elect them and they serve for a three year term.
A typical Standing Committee has a Chairperson, who is not the bishop, although the bishop has a seat on the committee. The Standing Committee consents to the Bishop’s appointment of major officers (Treasurer, Secretary, Registrar, and Chancellor) for the diocese, and might also review the Bishop’s performance each year. If a bishop has a moral failing, or is absent from the diocese, it is the Standing Committee who keeps the diocese running.
The Upper Midwest Diocese deviates from this norm in concerning ways. Instead of an elected Standing Committee, they have the aforementioned Bishop’s Council, made up of Deans and two elected lay people from within each deanery. The Bishop’s Council is the legal board of directors (Art. III of the UMD Constitution and Canons), and is responsible for all major functions of the diocese. The Bishop chairs this council himself, meaning that he is the one who sets the agenda.
Since the Synod (Diocesan Assembly) isn’t involved in electing this board, the Bishop is granted exponentially more power regarding its members. If a new deanery is formed (Art. IV), its leader is confirmed by the Bishop. The Bishop can also create new non-geographic Deans and Canons. He chooses who gets a seat at the table.
Undoing this pattern of favoritism can only happen by investigating and restructuring the UMD Constitutions and Canons, which form the backbone of this culture. We are heartened that the Province has included the Constitution and Canons in their investigation.
To read the full letter and/or add your name to the growing list of signatories, you can access the original post here.