Dear [Clergy 1], [Clergy 2], and [Clergy 3] —

All three of you have a personal interest in and have appealed to me to consider disciplinary action for Dan Claire based on what you believe to be serious abuse of ecclesiastical authority. I do want you to know that I have been attending to this issue virtually every day for weeks. A formal inquiry into the charges you have made will be unfolding in the near future. Dan is aware of this. (By the way, [Clergy 1], your appeal for confidentiality has been fully honored in this process.)

It is not appropriate to give you details about this investigation, but I did want to take a few minutes to enlighten the three of you to one mitigating factor which we have not discussed. In this I am not attempting to divert your concerns at all but only to set the record fully straight so that there is no question about the degree of Dan’s possible responsibility for actions versus other mitigating factors.

The mitigating factor I want to put on the table for the three of you is the advice I gave Dan RE: [Redacted] (I don’t remember her last name) and [Redacted] (I don’t know her last name).

The situation RE: [Redacted] is fuzzy — it happened back in 2015. I got involved through request for prayer and advice from Dan and also from my direct episocopal responsibilities for Matthew Mason. My view of [Redacted] was shaped largely, but not wholly, by the reports I received from Dan and Matthew concerning her behaviors. She was described to me as a sexually dangerous person (not the term used, I’m trying to summarize) who posed a risk in general, and who specifically posed a high risk to clergy at Church of the Rez. The reports came first-hand from someone who was tangled up with those behaviors and who, by his admission, shared responsibility for them alongside [Redacted].

In the end, my recommendation and advice was that [Redacted] be terminated from employment and that she be requested to leave Church of the Rez. I do not remember at all how that happened.

I do know that some time after that I learned that she was active and involved at [church]. I remember being grateful that she had some context for worship and fellowship, but also that I was apprehensive that her behaviors might emerge again. I did nothing about that — except offer a direct warning to [Clergy 1] and [Clergy 3] to be on guard (I think — I don’t remember for sure). I also remember seeing her at [church] and being very uncomfortable with the way she was dressed and her physical posture. (I’m sorry to have to say that in a “Me Too” world, but it is true.) I did nothing about that except perhaps (I can’t remember) strengthen my warnings to [Clergy 1] and/or [Clergy 3]. It’s all pretty vague.

My point is, [Clergy 3] has come to [Redacted’s] defense. [Clergy 3], you are free to do that and to offer a counter-narrative based on your experience and convictions RE: [Redacted]. It may turn out that all of this is old news about her and that she either lays was, or has become, a “safe" and maturing young woman.I have no interest in settling that other than to say to you three, based on first- and second-hand comments from Dan C and others at Rez, I did consider [Redacted] to be a danger to the moral well-being of clergy under my care. Therefore I clearly supported her termination and the protections that I agreed were necessary to remove her from the situation.

RE: [Redacted], I have no first-hand experience of her, only what I was told by Dan C as the situation unfolded at Rez RE: the film conversation. Dan talked me after the supposed email flurry exchange from [Redacted] to him, and he presented to me basically what he told you directly in the zoom call in the fall. (At the time he talked to me, there was no mention of her being dressed provocatively. I actually think he & I talked about [Redacted] before that incident, but I am unclear on the timing. I do know we had two separate conversations about her, and I may well have the details mixed up.) Anyway, the way Dan described [Redacted] aroused significant concerns in me based on two experiences I had in the past with borderline personalities who tried to get inappropriately close to me, not sexually but in order to become very familiar with me and close the the center of power. (Where that might have gone sexually can only be guessed at: it was not part of the presenting concern and it never developed to anything that might have been mistaken for that.)

The key signal to that borderline personality was an endless, unstoppable string of email exchanges — where every answer I gave simply kept the conversation going. I could never put things to bed. I understood from Dan that this described [Redacted], so I advised Dan to basically do what amounts to your description of his shunning her: totally refusing to respond to he continuing emails, calls, texts, etc. That was my practice in the two situations in which I dealt with what could be borderline personality disorder.I do not think my advice triggered his actions: he was already taking action. But I am sure he took my advice as strong support and guidance. My advice was based totally on his descriptions of [Redacted], and the basic trust I have had in him as a reliable partner and leader. In the end, in both these cases, I do not think that my advice created the course of his actions, but it certainly confirmed his actions on some level.

Hence this lengthy email: I need to be clear with the three of you about this.I do not write this email to undercut or counter your basic concerns about Dan.

At this point, a proper and effective investigation into charges against him, and his defense and explanation for his actions, lies in the near future. But as we wade into that, I am sure that it will be discovered that Dan, like all of us normally do, will have discussed how to deal with certain crisis situations with other friends and advisors. I am one of those people.

Those of us he sought for advice may have had only the information we were given by Dan (or in the case of [Redacted], also by Matthew Mason). I for one had no reason to doubt the full veracity of the descriptions and comments Dan was giving me RE: [Redacted] and [Redacted]. (And to be fair, those descriptions might prove to have substance and merit. That will be up to the investigation to determine.)

Let me reiterate, I am not trying to undercut your concerns or the seriousness of them. They have been delivered, without evaluation on my part, to the investigator, and they have raised alarm bells so that person I have sought to lead this process has agreed to take on a canonical investigation. By this email, I am simply trying to be honest and direct about the advice I gave Dan in the context of the crises RE: [Redacted] and [Redacted]. In some sense, in both cases, I supported him in his actions.

I trust this makes sense. I trust you will pray through what I’ve said in terms of your own understanding. I trust that you will get in touch with me if you have further concerns or questions about what I have written, or that if you understand and accept the reason for this email, you’ll let me know.

In the love of Jesus,

Bp Steve