Anglican Watch calls on Episcopal priest Bill Danaher to resign, seeks accountability from the Diocese of Michigan

Anglican Watch is calling for Episcopal priest Bill Danaher, rector of Christ Church Cranbrook (CCC) in Michigan, to resign. The announcement follows an extensive independent investigation by Anglican Watch into allegations that Danaher’s ministry reflects a pattern and practice of spiritual and emotional abuse, defamation, disruptive behavior, and questionable governance practices.

In addition, Anglican Watch calls on the Diocese of Michigan to review and address its handling of a 2019 Title IV complaint against Danaher, which resulted in no pastoral response to the persons and communities injured by Danaher’s actions.

The allegations about Danaher

Our investigation centered on complaints from a variety of individuals connected with CCC that, taken as a whole, lead us to believe that Danaher meets the clinical definition of a malevolent narcissist. Among the behaviors/traits alleged are:

1. A narcissistic pattern of idealization, devaluation, and discard in which Danaher pulls parishioners and others into his orbit. As part of this, church members initially feel like they are working closely with Danaher and have a good relationship with him. But once Danaher no longer has any use for the individual, he begins an aggressive campaign of criticism, sometimes reaching the level of defamation, as he works to push them back out of his orbit.
2. A lack of accountability.
3. An unwillingness to follow church policies and procedures.
4. An utter lack of concern for the welfare of parishioners.
5. A lack of an ethical reference point.
6. An ongoing effort to exploit others, often by causing interpersonal conflict within the church via ad hominem attacks.
7. Shunning of parishioners who criticize him. We have seen such behavior in numerous situations involving narcissistic clergy, and it is both unethical and profoundly damaging, both to those shunned and to the larger church community.
8. Manipulative, Machiavellian behavior, often comprising deceit and misrepresentation.

We also want to flag an issue that’s endemic when dealing with narcissistic clergy: Many of the behaviors in question, when viewed in isolation, may seem innocuous or minor to onlookers and judicatories. But when seen as part of a larger pattern, one that is consistent over time, it quickly becomes apparent that the behavior in question is extremely abusive and damaging to the Body of Christ.

Relatedly, it’s important to recognize that the harm caused by such behavior far transcends interpersonal conflict. Instead, church members typically experience PTSD, profound trauma, loss of faith, depression, and even suicidal ideation.

Later in this post, we’ll discuss specific examples in which Danaher allegedly has engaged in abusive behavior.

The allegations about the Diocese

Of course, in a well-run diocese, the allegations set forth above would be quickly identified and addressed. But the exact opposite happened in Danaher’s case, resulting in lasting harm to all parties.

Issues with the Diocese of Michigan first came to light in 2017, with a Title IV complaint filed by CCC parishioner and former senior warden Pamela Dittrich Redfield. The complaint is well written and insightful, and it identifies specific examples of allegedly abusive behavior by Danaher. As such, we find it highly credible.

The Diocese, however, appears to have tried to sandbag the complaint in various ways, including:

• Playing games over who, in fact, is the complainant. Indeed, at one point, the Diocese appears to have excluded several women from the Title IV process — which is supposed to be a discussion — on the basis that they weren’t formally complainants. But the canons make clear that the Bishop Diocesan has the authority to name people as complainants/injured parties, even if they didn’t file a formal complaint. This process exists to ensure that all who may have been hurt by misconduct are given a “seat at the table.” Yet the Diocese seemingly took the exact opposite approach, excluding others in the name of “confidentiality.”
• Brushing off a group of women affected by Danaher’s behavior with a series of sexist/misogynistic remarks. And when the women in question attempted to file their own Title IV complaints, the Diocese rejected their efforts, claiming “double jeopardy.” To be clear, there is no concept of “double jeopardy” in Title IV, and each injured person may file their own complaint, at any time, in any manner, as long as it is not time-barred by the canonical statute of limitations.
• Failing to provide a pastoral response. Per Title IV, one of the top priorities at all phases of a Title IV case is a pastoral response, a structured approach intended to reflect care and concern for all involved. But instead of doing this, the Diocese ignored the needs, concerns, and trauma of CCC members, while quietly negotiating a disciplinary accord in 2019 with Danaher. Indeed, when parishioners subsequently learned of the accord and asked Bishop Bonny Perry about it, they were brushed off and told to ask Danaher. Hardly helpful, and a clear indication that the Diocese had zero concern for the welfare of parishioners. (To be clear, an accord should never come as a surprise to those hurt by the church.)
• Failing to provide the required procedural notices to the complainant. Indeed, the Diocese went silent after the complaint was filed, and it was only after Redfield contacted Bishop Gibbs that she learned that the Diocese had determined that nothing in the complaint rose to the level of a Title IV violation. Redfield’s partner, John Cunningham, promptly filed a timely appeal, only to be brushed off in short order by the Disciplinary Committee.

Relatedly, a letter from Bishop Wendell Gibbs to Cunningham, dated November 8, 2017, is a real piece of work. (Copy provided below.) In it, Gibbs gaslights Cunningham, telling him that any outcome other than dismissal of the Title IV case would violate both the letter and the spirit of the church’s disciplinary canons.

That’s a pretty amazing claim, since the goal of the Title IV process is supposed to be health, wholeness, justice, and amendment of life. Moreover, the question to ask at intake is, “How can we best resolve this issue?” The answer may involve mediation, negotiation of an accord, pastoral direction, or other measures.

In other words, it is the Diocese’s responsibility to find a solution, not to brush off the complaint. This notion is expressly set forth in Title IV:

By virtue of Baptism, all members of the Church are called to holiness of life and accountability to one another. The Church and each Diocese shall support their members in their life in Christ and seek to resolve conflicts by promoting healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among all involved or affected. This Title applies to Members of the Clergy, who have by their vows at ordination accepted additional responsibilities and accountabilities for doctrine, discipline, worship and obedience.

As for Gibbs’ suggestion that the parties return to reconciliation discussions and that they do so “without demands, expectations, or preconceived outcomes or agendas,” that is problematic for two reasons:

1. It appears that it was Danaher who walked away from these discussions due to fears that the conversation was a precursor to litigation. (Something tells us that Danaher lied to the bishop about this.)
2. It is axiomatic that mediation involves “demands and expectations.” Indeed, one of the first things a skilled mediator does is help the parties assess their needs and wants and prioritize those objectives. Once there’s clarity around these issues, mediation becomes a process of helping the parties parse what’s realistic, what’s unlikely, and what’s unhelpful. (As a former mediator, this author can attest that, in a huge percentage of cases, what people most want is to receive a sincere apology and to see a genuine effort at reparation. It’s only when this doesn’t happen that people pursue litigation or other, more draconian outcomes.)

In other words, Gibbs appears to be utterly clueless on this issue. And at every level, the Diocese doesn’t understand Title IV, how to implement it, or even the theology behind it. (As is almost universally the case in Title IV, a thread we see throughout this situation is a flawed theology of forgiveness.)

Specific allegations of misconduct involving Danaher

In the course of our investigation of Danaher’s alleged misconduct, we identified dozens of issues, ranging from microaggressions to egregious spiritual abuse/abuse of power. As we stated previously, we believe that these examples, taken as a whole, paint a portrait of an individual wholly unsuited to ministry.

Indeed, there are too many examples to include them all, but below we recount some of the more telling allegations:

• In one instance, Danaher appears to have had an outburst of narcissistic rage after being denied a particular individual as his curate. He went on a lengthy tirade about the Diocese, culminating with comments about Bishop Wendell Gibbs, in which Danaher allegedly said, “What else can I expect from a bishop who is a closeted gay man, whose marriage is a total sham, who drinks too much?” Homophobia much, Danaher? If nothing else, he’s lucky on this score: Bishops may ignore lots of misconduct under Title IV, but lèse-majesté will typically get the perpetrator voted off the island in record time.
• In other situations, Danaher reportedly made misogynistic comments about women, including over their appearance and their weight.
• In one particularly ugly and appalling situation, Danaher appears to have falsely and publicly accused a parishioner of being a pedophile. Yet neither law enforcement nor this publication has been able to identify any information to support this claim.
• Relatedly, Danaher allegedly publicly criticized his predecessor’s handling of these allegations, calling him “passive” and “out of touch.” Such behavior is highly inappropriate and unprofessional.
• In another instance, Danaher sent a letter to the entire parish, falsely stating that Cunningham had a “conflict of interest” and had stepped down as senior warden. It appears Danaher arranged this whole situation to push Cunningham out of office, despite the fact that Cunningham and Redfield had been nothing but supportive of Danaher.
• In yet another situation, Danaher appears to have barred a clergy wife from the property after repeatedly setting her up for public humiliation. We are unable to discern any legitimate reason for doing so or any effort to address and resolve potential concerns.
• In still another case, Danaher appears to have falsely accused church employees and volunteers of misusing church funds. This is particularly troubling, as we have repeatedly seen narcissistic clergy try this angle to discredit those they see as troublemakers or critics.

So, what next?

As we have already stated/alluded, we believe there are several aspects to this situation, all of which the Diocese must address:

1. There is inadequate recognition among diocesan leadership of the trauma this situation has caused.
2. The Diocese fails to see that its own botched handling of the Title IV process is a major component of this conflict.
3. The Diocese is woefully untrained in Title IV, lacking even a basic understanding of its goals or substantive requirements.
4. The Diocese does not apprehend that this situation, as currently configured, is not salvageable. No amount of coaching, admonitions, pastoral directions, or anything else will overcome the fact that Danaher appears to meet the clinical definition of being a malevolent narcissist. And while we are not mental health professionals, we’ve been at this long enough to have a pretty good feel for these issues. To be clear: Narcissistic personality disorder is inherently incompatible with ministry.
5. It is axiomatic that, over time, parishes become like their rectors. Thus, the longer Danaher remains as rector of CCC, the more damage will be caused. And yes, we are confident that Danaher can turn on the charm when he chooses, but friendly isn’t the same as faithful, and Danaher appears to be a Christian in name only. Thus, if Danaher doesn’t leave, CCC, one of the few viable churches in the Diocese of Michigan, will eventually implode.
6. One of the great truths of narcissists is that their accusations are confessions. Given the number of times Danaher has accused others of milking CCC, and given the lack of financial transparency we have seen in the parish, we urge all involved to undertake a full audit, sooner rather than later.
7. Danaher should, as we state in our headline, resign immediately. While the issues we have identified above may sound individually like personality conflicts, when viewed as a whole, Danaher appears to be profoundly spiritually, emotionally, and relationally abusive.
8. We encourage judicatories in the Diocese to read the Rev. Robin Hammeal-Urban’s excellent book, ‘Wholeness After Betrayal: Restoring Trust in the Wake of Miscoduct.” Particularly useful is the author’s reliance on the Alban Institute’s four-tiered approach to disclosure as a key aspect of healing, which includes disclose on the following levels:

• Personal
• Intra-personal
• Organizational
• Social

Indeed, as things stand, the Diocese appears to have made things far worse by treating everything as confidential. That is a problem, as we cannot be in right relationship with one another when we do not know the truth about each other.

Finally, a few important closing comments:

• For the inevitable lawyers, put the word “alleged” in front of each sentence in this post. Everything here is an allegation and has not been adjudicated in a court of law. That said, we believe our sources and find them to be credible, including John Cunningham and Pamela Redfield, and we stand with them and support them.
• Relatedly, we will undoubtedly get comments from Danaher’s flying monkeys in which they try to discredit us by claiming that Cunningham is evil, or that we’re smearing Danaher. To be clear, we have found Cunningham and Redfield to be unfailingly kind and generous in their assessments of this situation, and we’re not willing to compromise or negotiate on this point.
• Moreover, clergy are always responsible for their own behavior. No excuses, no sin-leveling, no you-do-too. Meanwhile, Danaher declined our invitation to speak to us about this situation, so spare us the bit about how we’re trying to smear him.
• We hope the Diocese and CCC will take this as an opportunity to do the real work of the church, which is to build beloved community. Thus, rather than treating this post as a threat, we hope they will see it as an opportunity to heal broken relationships and restore trust.

Our heartfelt prayers for all injured by this difficult and badly handled situation.