While I did not defend myself and did not attack back, I declined to give in to the pressure and leave at that time and under that kind of pressure as I knew that would be the very worst thing for the future of the Diocese of Southern Virginia. While I confess that I am a long way from perfection, I have been consistent from my election on that I believe that we are wasting our time trying to set priorities without first coming to terms with what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ - I called it "Identity Before Activity."

Since personal penitence and acceptance of personal responsibility for the health of the church was necessary, this message did not go over well with those more interested in business as usual. The truth is that there are longstanding problems and unresolved issues in the diocese which were clearly identified in the Diocesan Profile that was prepared before my 1997 election.

The laity, clergy, and staff identified the most needed Ministry Specialties in the next bishop as "Spiritual Leader and Pastoral Leader." On the last page was the astonishing observation. "One very troubling finding is that the top ministry specialties and our greatest concerns regarding the diocese and the Episcopal Church don't line up very well.

In other words, the person whom we say that we want may not be the best equipped to work on what we say are our greatest concerns. This brings up the very troubling question, 'Are we setting the new bishop up for failure before he/she begins?'" That was, in fact, the case, but there was no interest on the part of current leadership to try to understand and resolve what was behind that statement.

It was a sadly missed opportunity to my way of thinking. There has been a lot of energy and angst around issues of "trust" which once again represented a very old condition in this community. This fact was also clearly identified in that same Diocesan Profile, "trust issues regarding leadership is the greatest concern of the diocesan clergy.

The concern is over a perceived lack of vision within the leadership of the church. This category is closely related to the lack of direction, lack of mission focus, and need for evangelism listed by the laity as their greatest concern. One possible explanation is that perhaps the clergy include themselves among the leadership and at least partially blame themselves for the perceived lack of direction and evangelism focus." So, the idea that the unrest in the diocese was new or that it would be "fixed" by electing another bishop was simply disingenuous and the majority of people in the diocese are quite aware of that reality.

Instead of supporting those who believed the solution was simply a change of bishops, the 2005 Annual Council overwhelmingly approved a Resolution calling upon the Presiding Bishop to appoint three impartial bishops to review the situation in the diocese by interviewing a wide variety of people, and to make their recommendations before the next Annual Council. Bishops Gordon Scruton, Chilton Knudsen, and Charles Jenkins agreed to help and spent many hours talking with people from every point of view.

When it was released, the much anticipated "Three Bishops' Report" offered these observations about the diocese:

(1) We heard a strong desire from all to learn from the current complexity of problems and move forward in more positive ways. It is clear to us that Christ is vigorously alive and active in the Diocese and has provided the spiritual and human resources to work through the present season of challenges. All these positive signs give great hope for the future of the Diocese.

(2) The roots of the divisions which were expressed on the floor of Annual Council 2005 continue to exist. Our findings indicate that there were multiple sources of conflict which led to the interchanges at Annual Council. We also heard reports about a fifty year history of significant conflicts between clergy and bishops in this Diocese. The Diocese can choose to view the present conflict as a God-given opportunity to examine, understand, and change the patterns of relationships and ways of dealing with conflict, which are part of the history of the Diocese.

(3) We recognize that no deep systemic change will be possible unless there is a desire and intentional effort on the part of bishops, clergy, and lay leaders to pay attention to the quality of verbal interactions. Positive changes will require a commitment to developing new patterns of interaction and mutual responsibility for words, actions, and relationships with each other.

While we recognize that such change is difficult, we know that with God's help, transformation is possible." Since this report did not in any way validate the idea that the quick fix of a change of bishops was the answer to diocesan dysfunction, it received remarkably little attention on the part of those who had hoped it would do just that.

The other "elephant in the room" was that a great deal of the energy for this call for a new bishop manifested itself after my vote against the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003 and my refusal to permit same-sex blessings. I did not do so angrily and did not break relationships with those who did not agree with me, but these were obvious factors despite protestations to the contrary from some long-time diocesan leaders.

I came to realize that as long as I remained in the diocese my presence would provide too easy a target and the real work that needed to be done could not happen. After prayer and thought and conversations with trusted friends I decided to retire at the February 2006 Annual Council while strongly encouraging a serious Interim Process.

There has been a five month interim period with Bishop Robert Johnson at the helm and a longer Interim Process with Bishop John Buchanan will begin in September. My hope and my prayer remains that the leadership of the diocese will become willing to do the hard work of unwrapping the existing systemic issues identified in the Diocesan Profile of 1996 and the Three Bishops' Report 0f 2005.

There simply must be a wider acceptance of responsibility for what is wrong and what must happen for the diocese to become focused on the Gospel instead of the navel gazing inherent in continued self- analysis and blaming others.

One of the sad results of all of this, in my opinion, is that there has been little energy or interest left for a wider and deeper engagement with the Windsor Report and the larger issues in the national/international church.

Please understand that I am not angry with anyone and wish nothing but the best for the people of this diocese whom I have come to love so much. After seeing several references in VOL to the diocesan situation from only one perspective I just wanted to offer another view, one that can be corroborated by many people in the diocese.

As always, I remain hopeful...

Yours in Christ,

+David Bane

FOOTNOTE: It should be noted that Bishop Bane voted against Gene Robinson's consecration, for the creeds and embraces the Windsor Report.