In our previous letter to you, we mentioned wanting to offer a more in-depth response to your letter, given its length and breadth of content. This is the purpose of this letter. There are a number of points in your letter which we believe could lead to misunderstandings, and which we therefore have sought to clarify in what follows. We hope this will be helpful to the on-going conversation you expressed wanting to have with us.

We have broken these points down into several general areas:

Relating to the history of our situation:

* While we appreciate that the current giving policy of our diocese was in fact approved at successive diocesan conventions, as you point out, we feel your letter does not fully represent some of the circumstances surrounding its initial adoption.

As you know, from August to October 2003 all of the giving intended for ECUSA had been frozen by Bishop Jecko. At the October Special Convention a resolution was passed, by a sizable margin, which declared that our diocese was in "impaired fellowship" with ECUSA.

The next resolution, introduced by several of us, called for all giving by the diocese to ECUSA to be suspended. The comments on this resolution were likewise running about two to one in favor during the discussion. At this point you asked for the privilege of addressing the delegates, for the first and only time during the convention, and then made a impassioned plea for the resolution's defeat, saying it would "tie your hands" in the House of Bishops.

The vote was then called, the resolution was defeated, and the plan adopted was the one you had advocated instead. We certainly acknowledge that you had the right to make such an appeal; yet it seems worth pointing out that if the resolution which carried was "overwhelmingly approved," as you put it, it was almost certainly in large measure because of your intervention and the deference extended to you as our new bishop.

* We are sorry if there was a confusion surrounding our initial meeting on June 16th, 2005, as we certainly were not intending to force a meeting between you and the seven of us. Five of us accompanied the Revs. Lebhar and McCaslin for the meeting they had scheduled with you, since they were presenting a letter on behalf of all of us, and were expecting to wait for them in the lobby. However, your staff invited all of us into the library to wait, and when you arrived you graciously invited the others of us to join in, for which we were thankful.

* To say that the two vicars "refused" to meet with you without an attorney may give a wrong impression of what actually happened. As you know, after you requested to meet with them, the two vicars informed you they had been advised not to meet without an attorney, and that one was on his way to join them, to which you initially acquiesced. When the attorney (Mr. David Dearing, of long association with the diocese) arrived five to ten minutes later you were introduced to him and spoke briefly with him and the two vicars before changing your mind and canceling the meeting.

* We are thankful for your reference to Matt. 18 as a pattern for resolving disputes. While the text deals with a slightly different situation (someone sinning against you), our aim in our behavior thus far as been to follow the spirit of this passage, by seeking to resolve our differences with ECUSA by working "up the ladder" of authority: first through the diocese, then through you, and now through the Panel of Reference representing all of the Primates.

Relating to our financial relationship to the diocese:

* We are afraid that the language of your letter could be construed to read that we have given no financial support to the diocese. In fact, all six of our churches have continued to support diocesan ministries over the last year and a half, and have given over $200,000 among them; we have been unwilling, however, to contribute directly to a diocese which continues to send support to a schismatic ECUSA.

* Our problem with giving to the diocese directly has nothing to do with "co-mingling of funds." Our problem is that the diocese represents us, whether we've directly contributed to monies sent to ECUSA or not. By continuing to support ECUSA directly, the diocese has chosen to maintain a financial tie to the national church, a tie which as a matter of conscience we cannot endorse.

* Giving in our diocese is defined as "voluntary." Furthermore, the canon relating to parishes being demoted to missions after two years of not giving (canon 22) comes under the heading of missions becoming parishes, and is clearly meant as a pastoral measure for missions which prematurely attain that status. We believe that to use this canon punitively over a matter of theology and conscience-especially when the ministries of the diocese are still being supported-would be a shocking misapplication of its purpose.

Relating to the theological issues at hand, and your own theological stance:

* In saying that the matter at hand is a "salvation" issue, we do not mean that all who disagree with us are going to hell, but that it relates to the core message of the Gospel by condoning sin and denying the necessity of repentance and transformation, thus endangering souls--including those in our own congregations.

* You note in your letter that we recognize you as "creedally orthodox." None of us are willing to state that you are anything less, since you have very clearly identified yourself as such. Our particular difference, however, has to do with "orthopraxy," as you have so far not followed what we believe to be the clear commands of Scriptures by taking the necessary steps to separate yourself and this diocese from those who advocate false teaching and condone immorality.

* In point of fact, we are not sure whether or not we share the same understanding of the word "orthodox," since you have declined to expound on this or to give a theological explanation for your refusal to authorize same-sex blessings or the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Since some in our diocese take the same position on the basis that "the time is not yet come," we are not sure if your stance is based on theological conviction or strategy. We note with concern, however, that some of these individuals, as well as some who openly question traditional positions, have been raised to places of prominence in our diocese since your installment as our bishop. Likewise, we are dismayed, given your professed sympathies, that in January of this year you told all of the missions to resign from their membership in the Network and the AAC.

* We are disappointed that you have still not given an explanation of how your position accords with the relevant Scriptures, especially 1 Cor. 5:1-13 and Rev. 2:19-23, dealing with church discipline. We are puzzled by the fact that you quote from Art. XXVI of the Thirty-Nine Articles to argue that communion should be open to all, when the next paragraph specifically refers to the "discipline of evil ministers." We are further puzzled that your statement seems to imply you do not believe in any table discipline for baptized believers. You will recall that some of these questions were raised in a brief theological paper we presented to you, and to which we are still awaiting a response.

Relating to our request, and what a future alternative oversight would look like:

* We are not asking for a "permanent divorce" either from you or from the diocese, but a temporary separation until such time as, God willing, either ECUSA repents or the diocese breaks fellowship with those leading ECUSA astray.

* Our goal is to both be faithful to the clear teachings and commands of Scripture, and to maintain fellowship with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion who have disassociated themselves from the leadership of ECUSA.

* You state that you believe it is inappropriate for the vicars to request alternative oversight since you are their "rector," and they are serving on your staff. While it is technically true that a bishop is directly responsible for ministry in a mission (though we cannot find any reference to the bishop as "rector" in the relevant canons), in practice a bishop typically has no more day-to-day oversight of a mission than he does a parish, and the congregations in question would naturally recognize their vicars as their pastors doing the work of ministry among them-no less so than if they were rectors. The concrete difference in the situation of a mission is typically that it receives financial support from the diocese; in this case only one of the missions does, and is willing to forego it.

* Likewise you express that the alternative oversight requested would be extremely difficult because there is scarcely an area of church life which does not "intimately involve the bishop." While gratefully acknowledging the importance of the bishop's role, we believe that the fact that you oversee over seventy congregations naturally limits how intimate that role can be, and that another bishop could step in without great disruption for the life of our congregations.

If there are three bishops in ECUSA who meet our conditions, as you suggest, any of them would be acceptable to us for oversight; we are also open to the possibility of receiving oversight from retired, suffragan or assistant bishops. As to your point that none of the three bishops are in our province, this appears to relate to the Panel of Reference's request that alternative oversight ideally come from the province of those making the request; however, it is clearly national provinces which are in view, not regional ones.

Dear Bishop Howard: we continue to seek God's wisdom in all of these matters, and appreciate your consideration of these points. We also continue to pray for you, for our diocese, and for the truth of Christ to be manifested both through the Episcopal Church and the larger Communion.

Sincerely in Christ,

The Rev. Neil G. Lebhar
Rector, Church of the Redeemer

William Shroeder, IV
Sr. Warden, Church of the Redeemer,
for the Vestry

The Rev. Samuel Pascoe
Rector, Grace Church

Thomas McKeithen
Sr. Warden, Grace Church,
for the Vestry

The Rev. David Sandifer
Vicar, Calvary Church

Elizabeth Collins
Sr. Warden, Calvary Church,
for the Mission Board

The Rev. James K. McCaslin
Rector, All Souls Church

The Hon. L. Haldane Taylor
Sr. Warden, All Souls Church,
for the Vestry

The Rev. James R. Needham
Vicar, St. Luke's Community of Life

Mary Leffler,
Sr. Warden,
St. Luke's Community of Life,
for the Mission Board

The Rev. Charles Alexander Farmer
Rector, St. Michael's Church

Emily Wilson
Sr. Warden,
St. Michael's Church, for the Vestry

Copyright Copyright 2005, Church of the Redeemer