You are here
Senior Bishops Respond to Meeting Request from Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice
American Anglican Council
Washington, DC
May 3, 2004
For Immediate Release
On March 14, 2004, Bishops C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina; Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; William Cox, retired Assistant Bishop of Oklahoma; Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee, and William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire confirmed 110 individuals at a multi-congregational Service of Confirmation and Holy Eucharist in Akron, Ohio. Subsequently at the March 2004 House of Bishops Meeting, those Bishops gathered noted that they “repudiate and deplore the unilateral actions” of the five but decided not to seek disciplinary action against them. In a statement released March 24, the House of Bishops accused the five of using confirmation “as an instrument of division and defiance.”
“Secretive in its planning, their action was discourteous, disruptive and a willful violation of our Constitution and Canons,” the statement continued. The Bishops also emphasized that further “infractions” would result in unspecified “consequences.” “At the same time, we hold these five bishops, and one another, accountable for the good order of the Church, the Body of Christ,” the statement said. “Therefore, in the future any bishop performing Episcopal acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop will be subject to discipline under our canons.”
Recently, the five senior bishops received a letter dated April 16, 2004 from the Rt. Rev. Charles E. Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana and President of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice. In the letter Bishop Jenkins wrote, “The House of Bishops invites you to meet with the members of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice to discuss the reasons for your actions, and, to share information with you about the work we continue to do as Bishops to embrace the ministry of reconciliation for the mission of the whole church. I therefore invite you to meet with the Council of Advice in Atlanta, GA on Thursday May 27 at All Saints Church. We will begin at 9:00 AM and work until the late afternoon. The cost of travel will be your own responsibility but I will provide lunch for you on this day.”
Referencing the crisis situation in which the Church is immersed, Bishop Jenkins wrote, “As a pastor, it is my hope that each priest that is in disagreement with his or her Bishop will continue to share personal views with the diocesan Bishop. I am convinced the Bishops of this Church are committed to responding generously to requests made in accordance with our plan for Caring for All the Churches.” Emerging incidents in several dioceses suggest this often is not the case, however. Bishops Jenkins’s letter repeated warnings against further actions, saying, “The House of Bishops also stated clearly that in the future, now that we approved a plan of pastoral care, any Bishop performing Episcopal acts without permission of the bishop diocesan will be subject to discipline under the canons of this church.”
The five bishops today released a letter to Bishop Jenkins in response to the request. The letter in its entirety appears below:
May 3, 2004
Dear Charles:
We thank you for the invitation to meet with the Council of Advice. Each of us has sworn to uphold the faith of the Church, the same faith that gave birth to and provides the unity of our Church. Only secondarily and derivatively do territory and canons hold us together. Since we believe this faith should be the first priority of the Episcopal Church we would be glad to meet with the Council of Advice with this as the first and foremost topic of discussion.
These are our concerns:
1. Does the House of Bishops intend to hold responsible those bishops who have publicly denied or attempted to rewrite the faith?
2. Is there any intention to hold accountable those 84 bishops who voted against the House of Bishops Resolution B001? For in so doing, they refused to affirm the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the Apostolic Ministry, thereby denying the vows they made at their consecration as bishops.
3. Does the House of Bishops seek restoration of full communion with the 21 Provinces of the Anglican Communion by responding to their request to repent?
4. Does the House of Bishops seek to reclaim our broken ecumenical relations with Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and other Christian bodies?
Issues of polity cannot be resolved until we are unified in the faith which we have sworn to guard and pass to future generations.
We believe it necessary for any meeting to be an open one so that nothing will be regarded as done in secret. Not all of us are available on May 27 as you suggest, but if you agree that our first priority for discussion is the need of the House of Bishops to treat the essential issue of faith and doctrine before we move to the derivative issue of polity and territory, we will seek with you a suitable date to meet.
In His Name,
The Rt. Reverend C. FitzSimons Allison
The Rt. Reverend Maurice M. Benitez
The Rt. Reverend William J. Cox
The Rt. Reverend Alex D. Dickson
The Rt. Reverend William C. Wantland
Cc: The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
ECUSA House of Bishops
Anglican Communion Primates
###
The American Anglican Council
1110 Vermont Avenue, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 800-914-2000 or 202-296-5360
Fax: 202-296-5361
E-mail: info@americananglican.org
God Changes Lives for Good!
