BELOW IS THE LETTER I RELEASED TO THE PARISH ON AUGUST 26, 2005

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ

On June 12, the clergy and lay leadership of six congregations responded to the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion when we followed their recommendations and applied for Alternative Episcopal Oversight according to the guidelines of the Windsor Report and the Primates Communiqué. Two months later (on August 12) we received a disappointing response from Bp. Howard in which he declined our request. He wrote a 18-page letter articulating his position. Such a lengthy and thoughtful document demands an equally thoughtful response which takes Bp. Howard's many assertions seriously.

The following pages are my (Sam Pascoe's) attempt to engage the thoughts Bp. Howard has placed before us. Throughout this document, I will use two type faces to distinguish the bishop's words from mine.

Bp. Howard's words/text appear in his original Times Roman font.

My words appear in this, Arial, font.

I hope this will make it clear to the reader whose words he or she is reading.

It is wise to remember that this is an ongoing dialogue between Christian brothers. Further, it is a dialogue between two brothers who have taken solemn vows to follow Christ in an ordered (to "ordain" means to order) way and to take leadership within God's Church.

The first vow each of us took when we were ordained was "[to be] loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them." That is the first promise every ordained priest makes. All others flow from it. It has priority over all others. Both Bp. Howard and I have promised that above all else in our ordained life, we will be loyal to the doctrine we received, the discipline we received, and the worship we received; this because we have received them from Christ himself. Thus, devotion to Godly discipline is as important as Godly doctrine and Godly worship.

I mention these things in such detail because, in many ways, this solemn promise is at the heart of our dilemma. Our petition for Alternative Oversight is an honest attempt to discern and live into what it means to weave together these three (doctrine, discipline, and worship) in a way that honors our Lord and our consciences.

It is also important to note that our consciences are neither overly scrupulous nor uneducated. Together the seven priests who signed the petition have over 100 years of collective service as ordained people in the Episcopal Church. Two have earned doctoral degrees. Two have been professors at Episcopal seminaries. Two of the seven have served in their respective parishes for over 17 years each (making them two of the three longest-serving clergy in the diocese at this time). We represent large historic parishes and small, new start-up congregations. The lay leadership who signed the petition are the elected leaders of congregations representing over 4,000 Episcopalians. Many are lifelong Episcopalians with strong emotional and familial ties to the Diocese of Florida. Others are people of deep and sincere Christian Faith who joined the Anglican Church as adults because they found in it a congenial place to worship and serve God. These men and women have chosen to be Anglicans as a result of a thoughtful, intentional process. This petition grows out of our collective devotion to the wonderful heritage of being Anglican Christians. It is our attempt to continue to walk and worship as Anglican Christians with clean consciences and sincere faith.

Before I begin my formal, point-by point, response, I must say that it was a source of great sadness and disappointment had to me that Bp. Howard did not even try to contact us at any point during the sixty days he was formulating his response.

In his public letter, Bp. Howard asks almost a dozen rhetorical questions, most of which could have been answered if he had contacted us at any time during the sixty days it took him to formulate his response.

It is also a source of sadness and disappointment that he chose to respond publically and without notifying us that his was posting his response on the web. Our petition was hand-delivered in a face-to-face meeting. Yet, we did not even know Bp. Howard had publically released his letter to us until we were contacted by the news media. Thus, the news media saw his letter to us before we did.

Having said all this, I now turn to my hand to attempt a reply to Bp. Howard's opus. Again, his text appears in Times New Roman font any my words in Arial. Bp. Howard's texts are excerpts. While I have made every attempt to present his texts in context, it is important for the careful reader to refer back to Bp. Howard's whole document available from the website of the Diocese of Florida, www.diocesefl.org .

And so, we begin...

Pascoe's Response to Bp. Howard's Response

On November 15, 2003, a Special Convention was held at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Jacksonville. The sole piece of business on the agenda for that day was consideration of a proposed plan for alternate giving in the diocese. Until the events of General Convention during the summer of 2003, the Diocese of Florida had routinely sent funds to support the work of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

What were these "events of the General Convention during the summer of 2003" which provoked such a powerful response? It is important for us to be clear about these events, for they are the background of the necessity of our repeal.

In August of 2003, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) made two radical, unilateral decisions which precipitously and provocatively overturned 4,000 years of Judeo/Christian history, belief and practice. First, the Episcopal Church did approve the election and consecration of Vicky Gene Robinson, an openly gay man who was openly and proudly living in a sexual relationship with another man. Secondly, the Episcopal Church approved and encouraged its dioceses to develop rites for the blessing of same-sex unions within the church. Again, this action unilaterally and arrogantly overturned 4,000 years of Judeo/Christian history, doctrine, and practice.

Further, at that time the Episcopal Church knowingly, publically, arrogantly, and unilaterally acted in direct defiance of the stated doctrine of the church, the expressed will of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the virtually unanimous voice of the rest of the Anglican Communion, the Pope of Rome, and the vast majority of the world-wide Christian Communion.

These actions were the most serious attack on the integrity of Anglicanism since its reformation in the 16th century. In the words of the leadership of the Anglican Communion, ECUSA's heresy and hubris has "torn the fabric of the communion at the deepest level."

For those who don't remember, at an emergency meeting at Lambeth just before ECUSA's 2003 General Convention, the primates of the Anglican Communion issued a statement that said, in part: "If this consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy... In this case, the ministry of one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world and many provinces are likely to consider themselves out of the communion with the Episcopal Church. This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level and may lead to further division on this and further issues."

ECUSA went ahead anyway. The rift ECUSA created in the Anglican Communion is so great that the majority of the Anglicans in the world have broken communion with ECUSA until it repents. ECUSA has been suspended from the Anglican Consultative Council. Several provinces of the Anglican Communion have gone so far as to refuse grants of money from ECUSA believing that receiving such funds would be a violation of Christian conscience.

We stand with them for the sake of The Gospel, historic and vibrant Anglicanism, and the integrity of our own souls in Christ.

We must be clear what these "events" were and why they remain worthy of the most thoughtful, prayerful, and courageous response. They are no small things.

In a footnote on this paragraph, Bp. Howard wrote:

In the Diocese of Florida, congregations pledge a tithe - ten percent - of their income to the mission and ministry of the diocese. The diocese, in turn, pledges a tithe from its income to the mission and ministry of the wider church. This pledge to mission and ministry of the wider church will be referred to as a "tithe-on-a-tithe."

Again, some clarity is important. Just as the biblical tithe is not a mandatory assessment but a voluntary gift, so also is the so-called "pledge" to the diocese. The Diocese of Florida is a "voluntary giving diocese." Giving to the diocese is not now, and never has been, mandatory. There have been many times in the recent history of the diocese when churches have given less than 10% to the diocese. If I, as a priest, threatened to publically humiliate and remove from the church every one of my parishioners who did not tithe to the church I would not be a Godly or wise pastor. Giving is voluntary and, therefore, must not be used as a trigger for either condemnation or intimidation.

Further, and tellingly, the Diocese of Florida does not send a "tithe" to ECUSA. It has not done so for years. It seems odd that the diocese threatens to discipline its congregations for the exact same behavior in which it engages vis a vis ECUSA. And, perhaps most significantly, according to the bishop, the diocese is not withholding money from ECUSA out of theological principle (as these congregations are) but so that the diocese can spend more money on itself. Within the last year, salaries for diocesan staff have gone up substantially while at the same time diocesan giving to missions has been. Check it out and do the math for yourself.

[A] plan was accepted by virtually unanimous vote of Special Convention. This new plan allows each congregation to direct where the diocese should send the congregations' tithe on-a-tithe. Some congregations have elected to continue full giving to ECUSA. Some have opted for giving to mission and ministry in the wider church selected by the Diocesan Council (through. It's [sic] Global Missions Catalyst Committee, GMCC). Still other congregations have directed the diocese to split their giving between ECUSA and the GMCC in various percentages.

What Bp. Howard says in the above paragraph is true. However, he leaves out a crucial detail. The special convention was ready to vote exactly the opposite of the way it eventually voted. In a span of a few minutes, debate was cut off (I know because I was next in line at the microphone at the time), and Bp. Howard spoke to the delegates of the diocese for the first time.

He dramatically stepped down from his dias and spoke passionately about his desire to have "a place at the table" in the House of Bishops. He said our money would buy him that place. He argued that if we did as we were about to do (cut funding to ECUSA) he would lose his voice in ECUSA. The vote turned on his speech....not out of a change of conviction but to give this new bishop, who was addressing us for the first time, his first wish.

It would be a mistake to believe this vote taken in November 2003 at St. Mark's represented the heart of the diocese. It was a favor done for a new bishop whom we had hoped would do as he said, pick up the mantle from Bp. Jecko and take a strong stand for The Faith once delivered to the saints.

It is now almost two years later and we no longer have to speculate about how Bp. Howard will present himself within ECUSA. We have two years of experience by which to judge him. For example, at the last House of Bishop's meeting, Bp. Howard is claiming credit for a plan that barred all bishops, even orthodox ones, from being consecrated until General Convention of 2006. The net effect is that Bp. Howard is taking credit for creating a moral equivalence between actively homosexual bishops and orthodox, faithful, heterosexual bishops. Sadly, he is touting this as a great stride forward and a mark of his leadership.

This method of election is called "Local Option Giving." Since Local Option Giving has been in place to administer each congregation's tithe-on-a-tithe, the split between ECUSA and GMCC giving has been approximately 50/50, with each congregation being in complete charge of whether to give to ECUSA or not. All giving, whether to ECUSA or through GMCC passes through the diocese.

Unfortunately, Bp. Howard's last statement in the above paragraph is true. But it need not continue to be so. Our hope, and our proposal, is that congregations simply be allowed to send funds directly to ECUSA if they choose to, or to other approved episcopal ministries in the Diocese of Florida, if they so choose. At the very least, it would save overhead and postage.

We are not attempting to dictate to any congregation–or any individual–what they do under God with the money God has entrusted to them. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. We are asking that no money with our name on it–for we are members of the Diocese of Florida–be sent to support ECUSA's openly and demonstrably heretical and schismatic agenda.

... at the regular Annual Convention of the Diocese in January 2004, the same plan was ratified overwhelmingly by both orders However, late during the business session of that Annual Convention and during consideration of the diocesan budget for calendar year 2004, twelve priests announced, en mass, that they would be withholding all funding from the Diocese of Florida for the year 2004 ...

There is a crucial distinction to be made here. As one of the clergypersons who stood at that time, we were very clear that neither vicars nor rectors have the authority to either give or withhold any funds. In the Episcopal Church, no clergy can make any decisions about money. This is true of deacons, priests and bishops. According to the canons of the church, the only people who can make such decisions are elected lay persons within each parish. We were simply asking for time to consult with our vestries because the actions of the convention had taken such a turn that we knew our lay people would want to reflect on it.

We spoke when and how we did because the next order of business on the diocesan agenda at the time was the approval of the projected budget. We knew the decisions of the diocesan convention may affect parishes' giving for 2004. We, therefore, simply asked for time to consult with our vestries. We advised the convention that it would be unwise to approve a budget that relied on our giving as that issue was yet to be decided by the vestries– who alone had the authority to make such decisions.

We were only asking for some time to go through the canonical process of involving the laity of our churches in the decision about stewardship. Sadly, this desire to take time to consult with our laity was perceived as an attack on the diocese itself. Several other parishes interpreted our request for time for reflection as a challenge. Their clergy stood and dramatically promised to increase their pledge to the diocese. Oddly, they did this without any regard for the crucial role of the lay leadership of their various parishes.

Our request for time to consult our vestries seemed to have no effect on the convention as the full budget was passed, even without our pledges. Thus, it became immediately clear that our pledges did not make much of a difference anyway.

. . . St. Michael's, following meetings between bishop, rector, and vestry, eventually did pledge and contribute to diocesan support for the year 2004, but Father Farmer and the vestry of St. Michael's have announced that there will be no support forthcoming for calendar year 2005 nor thereafter . . .

As if to prove our point, the bishop raises the case of St. Michael's. The system of "checks and balances" the Episcopal Church wisely employs is vividly illustrated in this case, especially at the congregational level. In 2004, the rector and vestry of St. Michael's seriously considered the challenge presented by the decisions of our convention in January 2004. The rector had been one of those who stood at the convention to advise the diocese that his parish may want to change, or even escrow, their 2005 pledge. After carefully weighing the alternatives, the lay leadership (the vestry) decided that the congregation would, indeed, send money to the diocese. Based on events since then, they have stopped giving to the diocese, but the point remains that the decision whether or not, and how much, to give to the diocese is 100% a lay decision. When Episcopal congregations make decisions about money, those decisions are made by the elected lay leadership, not the clergy.

It is important to note at this juncture that as part of our congregational deliberations after the diocesan convention, Bp. Howard and his representative visited with the vestry of Grace Church in February, 2004. He was welcomed by the lay leadership of the parish and he and his representative clearly expressed his position on the issue of giving.

During this, his first, meeting with the vestry, Bp. Howard would not allow me or the other clergy of the parish in the same room with him and the vestry, even though he brought his own assistant. He would not allow us to rejoin the vestry until after he had left the building. In other words, there was never a time when the bishop and I were in the same room with the vestry.

This exclusion of clergy from meeting with their own vestry is unprecedented.

In my twenty years at Grace Church, no bishop has ever tried to separate the clergy from their laity as Bp. Howard did on that evening in 2004.

Once he did leave the building and allowed me to return, I asked the vestry to report what had happened. I was honestly stunned by their response.

Bp. Howard had managed to do something I have rarely been about to do–bring the vestry to unanimity. Before he spoke to them, the vestry was not unanimous. They were split 8-4 or 9-3 in favor of withholding and redirecting money. Ironically and instructively, after they heard Bp. Howard make his case, they were newly united in the opposition to sending money to the diocese.

That was not my doing. It was his.

Since then, two different vestries have never wavered from that position.

Later in 2004, considering the continuing objections of several congregations regarding commingling of funds with funds from other congregations bound for ECUSA ministry, the Diocesan Council provided an additional vehicle for congregations which do not want their tithe-on-a-tithe to be forwarded to ECUSA: The Special Ministries Fund. This fund is maintained in a separate bank account and in a separate name and can be used to pay any diocesan expense except giving to ECUSA or any of its agencies. The appeal to some congregations of The Special Ministries Fund is that their tithe-on-a-tithe which is deposited into this separate account will never be co-mingled with money from congregations destined for ECUSA. In sum, as of late 2004, the diocese has provided two ways for congregations to give for the common support of the diocese, each of which does not involve financial support of ECUSA: (1) Local Option Giving and (2) The Special Ministries Fund.

The above paragraph from the bishop's letter raises an important theme, a theme he raises again and again in his letter: the issue of what he calls "co-mingled" funds. This issue, actually this "non-issue," represents one of the real tragedies of this ongoing dialogue. I call it a tragedy because from our perspective, the so-called "co-mingling" of funds was never an issue for us. The fact that money from our congregation may sit, for a time, in a bank account with money from other congregations is not a problem for us. It never has been; I doubt it ever will be.

Our problem is not where the money sits when it is not being used. Our problem is where money goes when it is disbursed by the treasurer of the diocese. We object to money with our name on it (as members of the "Diocese of Florida") being sent to support leadership of ECUSA in New York City.

For us it is an issue of solemn conscience before our Lord.

. . . The vestries of Church of the Epiphany, Jacksonville, and of Church of the Redeemer, Jacksonville (one of the congregations making this Letter Request) presented Resolution #2005-05 which would have "requested" that the bishop not receive Holy Communion from the Presiding Bishop or at the same communion rail with the Bishop of New Hampshire or any of his consecrators. That same resolution also mentioned the possibility of "appeal without penalty to the Archbishop of Canterbury to provide alternative Episcopal oversight." That resolution was withdrawn prior to a vote being taken on it in the face of what would certainly have been its overwhelming defeat on the floor of Convention.

I would like to make two points about the above paragraph. First, quite simply, how is the bishop "certain" that the resolution would have been "overwhelmingly" defeated? He may, indeed, be correct. But the vote was not taken, so how can he know these things?

Second, and more importantly, the bishop seems to imply that those who put the resolution forward were out of order to even make a "request" (he puts the word in quotes for some reason) of their bishop. It would be a sad day if duly elected delegates, lay and/or clergy, cannot even make a sincere request of their bishop. I hope he is not, in this paragraph, suggesting that the mere act of making a request is somehow wrong.

Following Convention, in early June 2005, Father Lebhar called the office of the bishop and made an appointment to meet with me in my office at two o'clock on the afternoon of Response to Petitioner's Letter Request Thursday June 16. On June 14, I learned that it was Father Lebhar's intention to bring six other priests with him to the meeting, including three other rectors (Frs. Pascoe, McCaslin, and Farmer), two vicars of missions (Frs. Sandifer and Needham), and one soon-to-be retired priest who was assisting in a parish (Sanders.) I requested of Father Lebhar that only he and his fellow rectors (Frs. Pascoe, McCaslin, and Farmer) attend the meeting. It was my feeling that issues with the two vicars (Frs. Sandifer and Needham) could best be handled in a separate meeting and that there was no reason for meeting with Father Sanders other than one-on-one and privately. Contrary to my request, however, all seven arrived together to meet with me, and in an effort to be gracious to them, I invited all seven into the conference room at Diocesan House to meet with me, my canon to the ordinary, and archdeacon.

Again, some clarity is important here. Neil Lebhar made the initial appointment with the bishop's office. Two days before the appointment, Fr. Lebhar called to say others would be accompanying him to the diocesan office. The rest of us were coming along simply to be with our friend. We made it clear at that time we were perfectly willing to sit outside in the anteroom while Fr. Lebhar met with the bishop.

We reiterated this willingness to stay outside when we arrived at the diocesan office. Again, when the bishop entered the room (with his two unannounced "guests," by the way), we reiterated it a third time. We were sincere and fully expected to wait outside.

We did not think it would be a long meeting for we knew that the purpose of the meeting was simply to deliver the letter. Everything we had to say was in the letter. There was no real reason for all of us to meet with the bishop.

But, the bishop invited us all to stay. It was his call. I am glad the bishop acted, in his words, "graciously." But, he should not make it sound like we were putting him on the spot with unexpected or uninvited guests. That is simply not the case, especially since he brought unexpected and uninvited "guests" of his own: his Canon/Lawyer and his Archdeacon.

After the meeting, Bp. Howard asked Neil Lebhar to accompany him alone to his office. I watched from about three feet away (through the window in the bishop's office door) as the bishop verbally assaulted Fr. Lebhar. The bishop was clearly angry and made many threatening gestures toward Fr. Lebhar. At one point, I feared I would have to intervene for Fr. Lebhar's safety. After about five minutes, the bishop opened the door and released Fr. Lebhar. Ironically, the bishop earlier this year suspended a priest for what he perceived as an angry display at our diocesan convention. Having witnessed both "displays," I can honestly say that the bishop's display was much worse.

The Letter Request asked that I provide "adequate alternative episcopal oversight" for four parishes (Church of the Redeemer, Grace, All Souls, and St. Michael's), two diocesan missions (Calvary and St. Luke's Community of Life), and one retired priest (Fr. Sanders). The Letter Request was signed by the rectors, senior wardens, vicars, chair persons of the mission boards, and the retired priest. It was also signed by a lay individual representing an "Anglican Fellowship," a previously unknown entity within this diocese, but apparently a group with which Father Sanders had become associated while still serving as assistant to the rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Jacksonville.

Perhaps I am picking a nit here, or picking up on a nuance that is not there, but the bishop seems to imply that there was something untoward about Dr. Rob Sanders meeting with a group of Christian people outside the context of an Episcopal Church while he was on the staff of an Episcopal Church. I hope this is not the case.

In my twenty years of service at Grace Church I have had many wonderful experiences meeting with other Christians outside the formal structure of the Episcopal Church. Such ecumenical gatherings are very enlightening and enlivening. And, if such groups of people are unaffiliated with any church, it is a wonderful thing when they seek to organize and come under Godly, episcopal authority. I hope this sort of activity would be something we would celebrate and elevate, not question or demean.

At the conclusion of the June 16 meeting, I requested that Father Sandifer, vicar of Calvary Mission and Father Needham, vicar of St. Luke's Community of Life Mission remain to discuss the Letter Request with me. Inasmuch as each of the vicars report to me as the rector of the two diocesan missions in question, I wanted to discuss how each proposes to maintain leadership in a diocesan mission while continuing their relationship with me as my assistants. The vicars informed me that they refused to meet with me without their lawyer present. The meeting concluded without any further discussion.

After he released Neil Lebhar, he then summoned the two vicars into his office. They asked if they could wait for five minutes while an attorney arrived. This attorney is an old friend of one of the vicars, the son of a previous chancellor of the Diocese of Florida, and a life-long, active member of this diocese. The bishop agreed to wait and went into his office.

The bishop emerged from his office a few minutes later, asking if the attorney had arrived. When he was informed that the vicars were still waiting, the bishop indicated that he would wait as well and returned to his office.

Thus, the bishop had two separate occasions after he was informed that an attorney was coming, to call the meeting off. He knew the attorney was coming. He seemed to have no problem with having an attorney present. On neither occasion did he even hint that the attorney should be told not to come or that he would refuse to meet with the vicars once the attorney appeared.

When the attorney did arrive (about five minutes later) the four men - bishop, two vicars, and the attorney - started to walk down the hallway to the bishop's office. They had not gone but a few steps when I overheard Fr. David Sandifer say something like, "I am glad you [Bp. Howard] agreed to let [the attorney] come along. He is an old friend, often attends my church and has been studying canon law....."

As soon as this vicar mentioned "canon law," the bishop stopped dead in his tracks and said something like, "Then there is no reason for the meeting." He walked into office alone, leaving the three in the hallway, stunned. Up to that point, the bishop at been willing to meet with them. Once canon law was mentioned, he was no longer willing to meet.

In his letter, he even goes on to say that having an attorney in the room "effectively cut off any further dialogue."

This assertion raises two issues. First, one would hope that the mere presence of an attorney would not preclude honest communication among honest people but may, indeed, foster it.

Second, it is important to remember that both the both the bishop himself and his canon are attorneys–both of whom have far more years of experience being attorneys than they do being clergymen. And, the bishop has another attorney (the diocesan chancellor) on his staff. So, if anyone is "lawyered up," it is the bishop's office, not the petitioners.

... The Letter Request asks not only that I allow an alternative bishop to take charge of liturgical and pastoral visitations, but also that I permit such bishop to take charge over all ecclesiastical matters. Specifically, the Letter Request asks for an alternative bishop to have complete and total oversight which, "in addition to confirmation includes clergy discipline, employment and succession." Brief conversation at the June 16 meeting confirmed that, should the request be granted, and considering the breadth of the episcopal duties covered in the Letter Request, there would be no remaining episcopal functions for the Bishop of Florida with regard to these six congregations and one retired priest. In essence, the letter asks for the formation of another diocese within the boundaries of The Episcopal Diocese of Florida.

We are not asking for, in the bishop's words, "a diocese within" a diocese. We are asking the church to replicate the model it created when it established the Diocese of the Armed Forces. Episcopal chaplains to the armed forces are not considered members of the dioceses in which they reside but are accountable to the Bishop of the Armed Forces. His (or her) jurisdiction is parallel to that of bishops who hold geographically defined cures and, thus, overlaps them. Therefore, there already exists in Episcopal polity a model for parallel and/or over-lapping jurisdictions. We are asking that this model serve as a basis for a new way of moving forward during this difficult season in the life of the church. We believe this model not only can work but is already working as noted above in the case of the Armed Forces.

The Letter Request specifically asks that I grant an alternative bishop oversight "who is not at table with Mr. Robinson and Bishop Griswold, and whose diocesan budget does not include giving to the national programs." To the best of my knowledge, out of the over 100 diocesan bishops in the Episcopal Church, only three qualify. None of them are diocesan bishops in one of the four remaining dioceses in the State of Florida nor within our Province IV.

While I lament the sad truth of the bishop's statement that only three sitting diocesan bishops would qualify for alternative oversight, I am puzzled by his implication that this makes it impossible for him to comply with our request. It only takes one bishop to meet our needs. His response seems to be analogous to a doctor telling his patient, "I'm sorry, there are only three doctors in America who can perform the operation you need. Therefore, you cannot have the procedure." I am hopeful the bishop will consider allowing one of those three bishops to provide alternative oversight.

Further, there are several retired bishops (including Howard's predecessor, Bp. Stephen Jecko--now Assistant Bishop in Dallas), who would meet our needs. Perhaps Bp. Howard can defer to one of these Episcopal bishops on our behalf.

The Letter Request states that the governing principles of the request for an alternative bishop are (1) paragraphs 150 and 151 of The Windsor Report and (2) paragraph 15 of the February, 2005 Primates' Communiqué. The Letter Request does not mention nor base its request on "Caring For All the Churches" dated March 23, 2004 by The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. The exclusive nature of support for the request being The Windsor Report and The Primates' Communiqué is made clear in the Letter Request: "[w]e base our request on these two documents."

This is true. We petitioners based our request on the highest authority available. The Windsor Report and the Primates Communiqué represent the will and wisdom of the highest levels of the Anglican Communion. It would be as if a petitioner can base his or her case on the Constitution of the United States rather than a lesser document. These documents supercede all other lesser documents. Their authority is definitive.

We also base our appeal on these documents because at our convention the spring, the Diocese of Florida endorsed these documents as binding on our actions and consciences. Thus, these documents form a common ground for our life together as a diocese.

It is important to note that a motion championed by the bishop at the spring convention which would have diluted the full authority of these documents was defeated in favor of full acceptance.

...The Letter Request specifically calls for an alternative bishop with authority far beyond the authority provided by any of the delegated or extended episcopal oversight plans. As the Letter Request asks for - and by implication demands - a bishop without any ties to either the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church or ECUSA, this brand of alternative oversight goes beyond what has previously been experienced within our church. Little interpretation need be made to see the goal of these six congregations and one priest as cutting off all ties with the Diocese of Florida and with ECUSA and creating a new diocese-within-a-diocese.

As noted above, even though the bishop "interprets" our request as creating, in his words, "a new diocese-within-a-diocese," that is not our intention. That is his "interpretation" (his word) not ours. The phrase "diocese-within-a-diocese" is his, not ours.

As many readers will know, a "diocese" is an administrative unit based on a model from the days of Emperor Diocletian in the Roman Empire. It was adopted by the church as a convenient way to administer the earthly affairs of the churches. As "ministry" is at the heart of "administration," the early churches chose one person to oversee (the Greek word for "over-see" is "epi-scope") the work of the various churches and exercise a ministry of ad-ministra-tion.

There are many ways for churches to be overseen that fall within an "epi-scopal" model. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral anticipates that episcopal ministry is an evolving thing. We believe our model not only can work, but is already working, as we noted above in the case of the Armed Forces.

Further, a diocese is a legal entity created for a permanent existence. It is not our intention to create a permanent structure. We are looking for a temporary solution to a temporal problem. It is a bandage to keep the patient from losing more blood until serious surgery can fix the real problem.

The range of duties entrusted to the diocesan bishop with regard to the clergy and congregations in his diocese is immense. In the Episcopal Church there is scarcely any area of worship, administration, or leadership on the part of the clergy and congregations of the diocese which does not intimately involve the bishop of the diocese. . . .

I personally find the above statement a bit ironic. I say this because, even though Bp. Howard was elected over two years ago, he has yet to visit two of the six churches applying for oversight.

Sad but true.

Even though the bishop's office is only a few minutes away from both Grace Church and Church of the Redeemer, he has never once set foot in either parish (except to meet with the vestries). Despite repeated invitations he has never preached a single sermon, offered a single prayer, participated in a single communion, or greeted a single family in either of these two large parishes. Further, he has no plans to visit in the future.

Now, if Bp. Howard really believes that he has "immense" duties relative to Grace Church and Redeemer, and that "there is scarcely any area" of parish life that does not "intimately involve the bishop," the fact that he has never even visited these parishes since he was elected bishop 27 months ago is quite shocking and telling. It seems that either he cares little for the people of these two parishes or that his trust in the parish leadership is so high he feels no need to visit. In either case, it makes one wonder why alternative oversight represents such a problem.

As I said, he has never visited Grace, and he has no plans to visit Grace. How is this situation better for Grace than alternative oversight would be?

From here, the bishop goes on to raise a series of very practical questions. They are good questions and they deserve answers. The simple fact is the our letter was not intended to address such necessary but secondary issues. I agree with the bishop that they need to be addressed and we would do so as we work out this unfolding situation. None of the issues he raises are deal breakers.

Again, as mentioned above, it is disappointing that at no time in the 60 days he took formulating his response did Bp. Howard contact any of us to ask these questions.

One specific issue does need to be cleared up at this point, however: indebtedness. As the diocese's name is on most, if not all, of the various instruments of indebtedness in the various parishes in the diocese, the diocese needs assurance that these debts will be serviced.

Let me say categorically, regardless of how alternative oversight works itself out, we have no intention of defaulting on any loan related to diocesan property. In the twenty years I have been at Grace, we have never even missed a payment and, if I have anything to say about it, we never will.

I am grateful that the bishop acknowledges that it is the parishes and congregations, not the diocese, that is paying for the property.

Two points are worth noting here, however. First, because of Fr. Neil Lebhar's long and faithful ministry, Church of Redeemer is debt-free. This is a remarkable thing for a church of this age and size.

Second, recently the bishop's office that unilaterally and secretly intervened to freeze an already approved loan to organ repair at St. John's, Tallahassee. They did this without advising St. John's and their stated reason was a lack of trust in the leadership of St. John's to service the loan. This sort of action has no place in a diocesan family.

. . . As stated earlier, three successive Conventions of the diocese voted to enact a plan where each vestry or mission board of the diocese may designate where the diocese should send the congregation's tithe-on-a-tithe. With this so-called "Local Option" plan of giving, any parish may designate up to 100% of its tithe-on-a-tithe to global mission agencies other than ECUSA. Additionally, last year I created a separate option involving a separate bank account, designated as the Special Ministries Fund to accept parish giving separate and apart from parishes designating some part of their tithe-on-tithe to ECUSA. The purpose of the Special Ministries Fund is to give parishes concerned with "co-mingling" of money destined for ECUSA a vehicle to keep their diocesan tithe separate. This latter fund has been used by one congregation which felt previously unable to give to the diocese due to this issue of "co-mingling." None of the Petitioners have chosen to participate in these carefully crafted compromise solutions to the question of giving.

As noted above, the issue of "co-mingling" was and is a non-issue for us. While we appreciate "these carefully crafted compromise solutions," they do not solve the issue with which we struggle. Again, it is not that we think our gifts will get "cooties" if they swim for a season in the same bank account with other parish's gifts. Our concern is where the money goes when it leaves the bank account. So long as money with our name on it–for we are part of the Diocese of Florida–goes to support an heretical and self-destructive agenda which has been repudiated by the vast majority of Anglicans, we do not believe we can support that agenda.

. . . . At all times in my episcopacy, I have stated clearly that I do not approve of the election of a non-celibate gay man as bishop. I have also stated clearly and unambiguously that same-sex blessings will not be sanctioned by the Episcopal Diocese of Florida. My position has not changed and my practice has been unwavering. I have been open and honest with all sides with regard to my stance on these issues. There can be no charge of hypocrisy against me. Therefore, within the context of the current church controversy, I have not breached any theological trust.

It is important to note at this juncture that Bp. Howard has never given any justification, let alone a theological justification, for his position. Therefore it is hard to know if he has breached any theological trust. He has never stated a theological position. This is important relative to this issue because I have heard many bishops proclaim their unwillingness to ordain practicing homosexuals or bless same sex unions....for now. They make these protestations of their "orthopraxy" not for theological reasons but for political reasons.

It would help all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, to understand Bp. Howard's position if he would simply state in writing his theological and biblical justifications for his position. Further, it would help us all if he would state in writing his theological and biblical reasons for why he will never, under any circumstances, ordain a practicing homosexual or bless a same-sex union, even if the Episcopal Church should authorize, or even require, him to do so.

So far, Bp. Howard's claim to orthodoxy is based on his saying he will not do things. It would good to hear him state his orthodoxy in positive and theological terms.

It is also interesting to note that during the June 16 meeting, Father Lebhar stated that he believed me to be a "creedally orthodox bishop." None of the others present would contest that characterization. Further, at the recent annual convention of the diocese on May 21, 2005, one of the resolutions submitted by Church of the Redeemer and supported by the other signatories to the Letter Request specifically stated that our diocese is "an Orthodox diocese under the leadership of an Orthodox Bishop, the Right Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard..."

As noted above, it is hard to know for sure that Bp. Howard is "creedally orthodox" because he has never stated his theological position. But, granting for the sake of argument that he is creedally orthodox, the Scriptures make it clear that Christian leadership demands more than simple creedal orthodoxy. It demands a disciplined Christian morality.

In the Epistle of Jude, our Lord's earthly brother says this: {Jude 1:3, 4, 12, 17, 18}

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. . . . These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm--shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted--twice dead. . . . But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.

Note that Jude specifically states he is writing to Christian brothers and sisters ("the salvation we share"). Yet, he also indicates that Christian leadership demands that for the sake of the community, those who promote immorality, specifically and especially sexual immorality, under the guise of God's grace, must be condemned and expelled. He specifically goes on to mention their ritual meals (perhaps eucharistic meals) and the necessity of their expulsion from the fellowship.

This is consistent with St. Paul's admonition to the Christians at Corinth which I will discuss below. But, at this juncture, it is important to note that even if Bp. Howard is "creedally orthodox," Christian leadership at this time in history demands a consistent and thorough application of the whole counsel and discipline of God.

Neither have I breached any ecclesiological trust. Within our church, we have always placed a high premium on table fellowship. As Episcopalians, we consider our communion as not just with one another, but with God. Our Eucharistic table is open to all baptized Christians - regardless of denomination - not just Episcopalians or Anglicans. Historically, we have long held that the sacraments be "effectual because of Christ's institution and promise. . ."

I find it fascinating that Bp. Howard quotes a portion of Article XXVI ("Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament") in this portion of his response. I have written a book on the Articles of Religion that is used as a text in several Anglican seminaries. I know a little about them.

It is interesting to note that Bp. Howard does not put the quote in its full context. The text of the full article appears below. Note the last paragraph.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

The Articles of Religion are clear. The effectiveness of the sacrament is not hindered by sinful men. BUT, that does not excuse the church from the responsibility to depose clergy who are guilty of corrupting the Gospel.

As long as we are talking about the Articles of Religion, let's take a look at Articles XX and XXI.

XX: The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Again, the Articles are clear. As soon as the church "ordain[s] anything contrary to God's word written" it has stepped outside the Anglican Faith and the Christian Faith. This is not that complicated. This is why ECUSA has earned the condemnation of most of the he rest of the Anglican world. But wait, there's more.

XXI: General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Church conventions are not infallible. "They may err...even in things pertaining unto God." God does not speak every time a convention takes a vote. In Martin Luther's immortal phrase, a Christian's conscience is "captive to the Word of God." Luther went on to say, "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

We do not claim to be Luthers. We do claim to be standing on conscience and the Word of God written. That is our heritage in The Faith.

.... Under the plenary terms of the Letter Request, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself would be unacceptable to Fathers Lebhar, Pascoe, McCaslin, Farmer, Sandifer, Needham, and Sanders and the congregations they serve....

I'm not sure this is true. It is true that the Archbishop of Canterbury did share communion with Bp. Griswold but, to my knowledge, he has never shared communion with Bp. Robinson, as Bp. Howard has. But, in order to know who is truly in the Anglican Communion, we will all need to wait until the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 2008. At that time, the Anglican Communion will have to see who makes the Archbishop's invitation list. That is why our petition for Alternative Oversight stipulates that we receive such episcopal ministry until the Anglican Communion sorts out who is and is not in communion with whom. That process will occur between ECUSA's next General Convention in June, 2006, and the next Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in the summer of 2008.

Interestingly, Bp. Robinson has already offered to stay away from Lambeth in 2008 so as not to create a scandal. Why would he say that? Because many bishops and archbishops in the Anglican Communion have already refused to receive communion with either Griswold or Robinson. In fact, at the meeting in Dromantine, many of the Anglican primates present refused to receive communion with Griswold and Robinson. Are they not Anglicans or is their theology defective?

The Letter Request also does not mention that, contrary to the behavior of the other congregations in the diocese, three of the four petitioning parishes (Church of the Redeemer, All Souls, and Grace) have failed to give any monetary support to the mission and ministry of the diocese since 2003. It also does not state that St. Michael's has refused to support the mission and ministry of the diocese in the current year's budget.

This is true but it has not been a secret.

Having said that, there is a sense in which the giving of voluntary gifts to the diocese is irrelevant–or should be irrelevant–to our request for alternative oversight. We would hope that our petition for alternative oversight, which is based on a "serious theological dispute," is not influenced one way or the other by money. One would hope that one does not have to buy one's way into the diocese.

In our diocese, the local canons provide that any parish which fails to make "reasonable provision for the support of the diocese and diocesan expenses," may have its parish status terminated after two years of non-support. Three parishes - Church of the Redeemer, Grace and All Souls - have not only failed to give such support since 2003, but have indicated their intention to not give support to the diocese until all of the 76 congregations in the diocese cease designating their money for the mission and ministry of ECUSA through our diocese.

One important thing that has yet to be definitively determined, or even discussed, is what constitutes "reasonable provision" in a "voluntary giving" diocese.

Regardless of the outcome of that yet-to-be-held discussion, the six congregations now under threat from the application of this canon would maintain that they we have, indeed, been providing reasonable support for diocesan ministries. In fact, since January of 2004, the six congregations have given well over $200,000 to support diocesan ministries. In addition, we have continued to pay the mortgages on the buildings we occupy as well as insure and maintain them. This, even though Bp. Howard maintains that the buildings we are buying belong to the diocese and the Episcopal Church. Thus, by Bp. Howard's definition, we have been increasing the net worth of the diocese on a regular basis and by substantial amounts.

Let me provide some statistics that I believe are highly relevant.

Since 1986, when I became rector, Grace Church has voluntarily contributed $1,214,275 to the diocese of Florida for the support of diocesan ministry. ADDITIONALLY, the people of Grace Church have paid out $755,000 to purchase additional property which the diocese says belongs to them. ADDITIONALLY, the people of Grace Church have paid $297,708 to insure the buildings the diocese says belong to them. ADDITIONALLY, the people of Grace Church have paid out $998,313 to maintain and improve those same buildings. Thus, since 1986, Grace Church alone has added value to the diocese to the tune of $3,265,296. AND, these figures do not even include money spent by Grace Day School over that same period to build and maintain six other buildings.

Therefore, during the period I have been rector of Grace Church, the actual total money raised for the support of various diocesan ministries by the people of Grace Church approaches $4,000,000.

In light of these facts, it is scarcely possible to assert that Grace Church and I have not supported the Diocese of Florida.

As further evidence of our investment in the ministries of the diocese over my tenure as rector, please note the following facts: In 1986 Grace Church had 5 buildings, the newest of which was almost 20 years old. Today, Grace Church has 16 buildings, 7 of which have been built or renovated in the last five years–including the main church, which was expanded from seating 325 to over 500.

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, as far as we can determine, not one penny from the diocese has ever been used to purchase, maintain, insure, or renovate any of Grace Church's property. It seems all the land and buildings of Grace Church have either been donated to the parish or paid for by the people of the parish.

Further, it is important to note in this context that recently some of our voluntary giving to diocesan ministry has been rejected by Bp. Howard. For example, in February of 2004, Jim McCaslin presented Bp. Howard with a check from his congregation (All Souls) representing 9% of their net budgeting income. Bp. Howard refused to receive the check because it was not 10%. Last spring, Grace Church sent a check for $8,000 to Camp Weed for scholarships. The check was never cashed because, we were told, Bp. Howard refused to allow such gifts to Camp Weed unless they came through his office. After several months of waiting for the check for camp scholarships to be cashed, Grace Church finally–sadly and reluctantly–stopped payment on the check and distributed the money to other ministries that would accept it and put it to use. My understanding is that Church of the Redeemer had similar problems having their gifts received by diocesan ministries subject to the bishop's demands.

I mention these examples because the petitioning congregations honestly believe we have been faithfully giving to support diocesan ministries. We have just not done it through the bishop's office. We would be willing to again channel money through his office once he stops supporting ECUSA and its agenda.

Does Father Lebhar really mean what he said when he called me "creedally orthodox?" If so, what possible theological need can there be for the appointment of an alternative bishop for him and his fellow Petitioners?

The answer to this rhetorical question was discussed above. But the fact that Bp. Howard raises it again indicates that he really has not comprehended the depth of the theological issues involved in our request and the deep concerns that motivate it.

The Letter Request asks for "assurances that non-pledging parishes would not face a change in their parish status, nor vicars in their employment." Are the clergy and laity of seventy other congregations who do contribute to the financial support of their diocese to understand that these six by simply requesting an alternative bishop can be absolved of all financial responsibility for our common life...that they can avoid giving indefinitely with a request for "alternative Episcopal oversight?"

Simply put, the answer is "No." We have not stopped giving to the ministries of the diocese and we have no plans to do so in the future. We are ready willing and able to continue to support the ministries of the Diocese of Florida. We will continue to do so, if we are allowed to, by sending checks directly to ministries within the diocese. We only ask that the Diocese itself not support ECUSA.

Regarding our concerns about employment and parish status, we only note that clergy should not forfeit their jobs and their livelihoods because the laity in their respective churches did not volunteer to subsidize an institution which they believe is corrupt and corpulent.

Remember, clergy do not control how money is spent in Episcopal congregations. I, as rector, cannot write a single check. To threaten the clergy for the actions of the laity, especially in a voluntary giving diocese, is wrong.

I also attempted to continue dialogue with the two petitioning vicars. But they have informed me, their employer, that they would not meet without a lawyer present. That has effectively cut off any further dialogue.

This is a most curious assertion, especially coming from a lawyer. I do not understand why having a lawyer present would "cut off any further dialogue." Is there something the bishop would not be willing to say in front of a lawyer? Bp. Howard was a lawyer for many years. One can assume that he was accustomed to talking honestly, openly, and effectively with other lawyers. One would hate to think that, when he was a lawyer, he believed his mere presence in a room cut off further dialogue. One would hope that having the presence of a trained, professional in the room would actually facilitate dialogue and communication. I am curious about this, especially in light of the fact that Bp. Howard brings a lawyer with him (Canon Dunkle) to almost every meeting. Canon Dunkle is a member of the Florida Bar Association.

As is well articulated by the Windsor Report, a fundamental governing foundation of our faith is scripture. Very appropriate to the present discussion is Matthew 18:15-17...

At every juncture, we petitioners have tried to follow the biblical model laid out for us. Matthew 18 is one of only two places in the Scriptures where the word "church" appears on the lips of Jesus. The other is in Matthew 16 in the context of commissioning Peter, encouraging him to be missional, and reminding him that the gates of hell will not prevail against The Church. So, the only two times Jesus used the word "church" were in the contexts of mission and discipline. Coming only two chapters apart in the Gospel of Matthew, it seems Jesus was trying to make a point. A true Church is characterized by mission and discipline.

The pattern laid out for church discipline in Matthew 18 is very simple and practical and always aimed at healing and reconciliation. Jesus said, start with one-on-one confrontation. If that fails, bring a few witnesses. If that fails, "take it to the church." We are fortunate that, as Anglicans, our "church" is a world-wide fellowship that spans continents and centuries. We have 400 years of Anglican tradition on which to draw–the wisdom of the saints who have gone before. We also have 75 million brother and sister Anglicans around the world. For Anglicans, "take it to the church" means more than have a few meetings with people you already agree with who live nearby. It means look at the history of the church, consult the international community, and submit to their wisdom.

That is precisely what we have done. In the past six months I have personally met with six archbishops of the Anglican Communion, who together represent more Anglican Christians than there are in all of North America and Europe combined. Others among the petitioners have met with other archbishops who represent even more Anglicans brothers and sisters.

These archbishops are very aware of our situation and have spoken very clearly on this issue. As noted above, some have gone so far as to do themselves exactly what we are asking Bp. Howard to do...they have broken table fellowship with ECUSA's leadership.

Some have even refused to take money from ECUSA, let along give money to ECUSA.

We have followed Matthew 18 and The Church has spoken. The Church continues to speak. They agree with us.

Further, in Matthew 18 Jesus goes on to say that if the person will not listen to the church, "treat him as you would a tax collector or a sinner." How did Jesus treat such people? He loved them, he reached out to them, he offered them healing, he did not give up on them.

BUT, he did not put them in charge of his Church. He did not excuse their sin, or overlook it, or bless it. He did not make them bishops. He did not give them money so they could continue to abuse his Father's house. He drove them out and called them to repent..

This issue will be discussed further when we look at I Corinthians 12.

One final issue must be addressed: salvation. The Letter Request also states that the appointment of a different bishop "is a salvation issue." Presumably, this means that the seven priests and six congregations are concerned that remaining in the Diocese of Florida under my oversight as bishop will result in eternal denial of entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. Alternately, this statement concerning "salvation" may relate to their inability to enjoy the benefits of new life in Jesus' earthly kingdom right now. Under either interpretation, are the Petitioners suggesting that the clergy and people of the other seventy congregations in the diocese are eternally damned for their financial contributions to the diocese and sharing table fellowship with me?

No. We are categorically NOT suggesting that anyone who gives money to the diocese is eternally damned.

We do maintain, however, that this is a "salvation issue."

It is a salvation issue because, if the actions of the General Convention in 2003 are allowed to stand, they change the very nature of the Gospel itself. If allowed to stand, the Gospel the Episcopal Church has preached will change from repentance of sin to the blessing of sin.

It will change from condemning sin to condoning sin.

And, ironically, it will go from truly loving the sinner enough to speak truth and offer healing to patronizing the sinner and allowing him or her to believe God wants less for them than fullness of life and healing of life's deepest wounds.

This new "gospel" is a settling for what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" whereby all our sins and preferences are sanctified and all we remake God in our image.

We are in danger of living into theologian H. Richard Niebhur's critique of Christian liberalism: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

Ultimately, of course, this is a Gospel issue. It is not about church politics. Recently the Florida Times Union ran a story about this issue. "'It's disappointing that political tactics are being used -- real disappointing,' said the Rev. Canon Kurt Dunkle, the bishop's chief of staff." {quoted from the Florida Times Union, August 18, 2005}.

I agree completely. No one is more disappointed than I am.

While I recognize the necessity for church "polity," I hate church "politics." In my twenty years in the diocese, I have never sought nor held any elected office. Over these two decades I have focused exclusively on being a pastor and a priest to the congregation I am called to serve. I have taught both Parish Leadership and Sacramental Theology at Episcopal seminaries. I am deeply committed to parish life and ministry.

When the bishop hired a man fresh out of seminary with no parish experience--but with years of experience as a lawyer