Senior Episcopal Bishops Condemn Secret Meetings, Uphold Essentials of Faith

In an open letter to Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, five senior bishops expressed deep regret that a pattern of secrecy continues in Episcopal leadership as the doctrinal crisis in the denomination grows daily. A meeting planned for August 13, 2004 between the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice and the five bishops was cancelled after the Presiding Bishop refused to allow non-participating observers to attend.

“We feel strongly that a meeting of this importance should not be held in secret,” the letter reads. “There is a history of closed door meetings in the House of Bishops. Our distrust of closed meetings on vital issues, as well as our assessment of the gravity of the current crisis in this Church, compelled us to insist that our meeting with your Council of Advice include non-participating observers.”

Bishops Fitz-Simons Allison, Maurice Benitez, William Cox, Alex Dickson and William Wantland were asked to meet with the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice as a result of their confirming over 100 individuals in the Diocese of Ohio March 14, 2004. The House of Bishops at their meeting one week later chastised the five bishops, but stopped just short of formal censure. The bishops accepted the invitation, welcoming the opportunity to “establish clarity on core issues which are dividing our Church.”

“We had hoped for an opportunity at this meeting to discuss the radical departures of the Episcopal Church from the Faith and Practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” the letter continues. “We have tried fervently for many years to have an open and honest discussion in the House of Bishops about these departures from our historic Faith and Practice, but to no avail.”

“The ECUSA leadership apparently prizes secrecy over the needs of the Church,” said Diane Knippers, one the lay women scheduled to serve as an observer for the meeting. “The fact that the Presiding Bishop insisted upon a meeting alone with the Council of Advice (composed solely of bishops) is typical. A small group of bishops also met behind closed doors to produce DEPO (Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight), a fundamentally flawed plan developed with no input from laity or clergy for whom the pastoral care is intended,” she continued.

The senior bishops’ letter asserted that the most serious “departure from the faith” occurred at the 2003 General Convention when bishops defeated Resolution B001, a measure affirming the historic faith. “It is difficult to understand how bishops could vote against the faith they swore to uphold at their consecration,” they said in their letter. “It has been reported that bishops did this for political reasons. If this is true, then this is in pitiful contrast to our predecessors who stood for the Faith, even in the face of death.”

“This defeat of B001 was in many ways worse than the two highly publicized decisions on V. Gene Robinson and same sex blessings because it tore away the foundation on which those decisions should have been based,” said Bishop Maurice Benitez. “We have abandoned 2000 years of Christian teaching on sexuality, but more importantly we have ignored the authority of Scripture. The result has been chaos in the Episcopal Church – ECUSA has lost large numbers of individuals and congregations, ecumenical relationships have been damaged and the denomination is now in a state of impaired communion with 22 of the 38 Anglican Provinces. The survival of the entire Anglican Communion is at stake,” he continued.

In addressing the current situation, the bishops expressed indignation regarding ECUSA leadership’s disproportionate focus on Church Order while ignoring the essential component of Church Faith.

“And yet, many bishops seem more concerned about Canons than about the Faith of the Church,” the letter reads. “Many bishops are taking stringent actions to punish clergy and congregations for being loyal to the faith in which they were nurtured for many years. We do certainly believe that Faith and Order are integral parts of one reality. However, the role of Order is to preserve, protect and defend the Faith of the Church, not just the territory and increasingly arbitrary actions of bishops.”

The five bishops are committed to public clarity on the issues rather than “private dialogue” which has so failed the church. “We need to acknowledge the reality of what has been wrought by ECUSA’s faithlessness,” said Bishop Alex Dickson. “Our concern is for those faithful Episcopalians who feel they cannot accept pastoral care from revisionist bishops and priests and feel ‘like sheep without a shepherd’. We pray the Primates of the Anglican Communion will discipline ECUSA as well as provide pastoral relief to our Church,” he concluded.

The Lambeth Commission is expected to release its report publicly in mid-October, and the Primates of the Anglican Communion are scheduled to meet February 2005.

We, the undersigned bishops, regret that the meeting we had jointly arranged with the Council of Advice, to take place on 13 August, is not possible due to your refusal to have this be an open meeting with a small number of non-participating observers present. We feel strongly that a meeting of this importance should not be held in secret. There is a history of closed door meetings in the House of Bishops. Our distrust of closed meetings on vital issues, as well as our assessment of the gravity of the current crisis in this Church, compelled us to insist that our meeting with your Council of Advice include non-participating observers. We believe this planned meeting was a significant opportunity to establish clarity on core issues which are dividing our Church. We deeply regret that this meeting now will not take place.

We had hoped for an opportunity at this meeting to discuss the radical departures of the Episcopal Church from the Faith and Practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We have tried fervently for many years to have an open and honest discussion in the House of Bishops about these departures from our historic Faith and Practice, but to no avail.

We regard these departures from the Faith, and their ramifications in the life of this Church we love, to have culminated in the actions of the General Convention of 2003. The most serious departure from the Faith at this recent Convention occurred when the House of Bishops refused to affirm the historic Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888, in a motion that was put forward to encourage the faithful members of this Church. We felt that it was imperative that the people of this Church be reassured that we the leaders of the Episcopal Church still believe:

(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of the faith.

(b) The Apostle's Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.

Sadly, this resolution (B001) to affirm this historic statement of our Faith and Practice lost on a vote in the House of Bishops: 84 - No, 65 - Yes, 8 Abstentions. It is difficult to understand how bishops could vote against the faith they swore to uphold at their consecration. It has been reported that bishops did this for political reasons. If this is true, then this is in pitiful contrast to our predecessors who stood for the Faith, even in the face of death.

As a consequence of this action, as well as others at the 2003 Convention, along with other departures from the Faith in recent years, there is confusion and dismay among many faithful Episcopalians. The Episcopal Church has been declared out of Communion or in impaired Communion with the majority of our Anglican family. Thousands of people feel they are "like sheep without a shepherd". Large numbers of clergy, congregations, and individuals have felt compelled by their conscience to leave the Episcopal Church. Still others remain but find themselves unable in good conscience to accept the pastoral care and Episcopal ministry of their diocesan bishops.

And yet, many bishops seem more concerned about Canons than about the Faith of the Church. Many bishops are taking stringent actions to punish clergy and congregations for being loyal to the faith in which they were nurtured for many years. We do certainly believe that Faith and Order are integral parts of one reality. However, the role of Order is to preserve, protect and defend the Faith of the Church, not just the territory and increasingly arbitrary actions of bishops. May the Lord have mercy on us!

We earnestly believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is calling the Episcopal Church to repent for abandoning much of the Faith "once delivered to the saints". We pray that you, as our Presiding Bishop, will lead us all by your own repentance, as called for by most of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, so that this Church will repent and return to the Lord.

You wrote "Can Foggy Frank DO anything to them? (Apparently his attempt at censure has already failed.)"

He can continue to say nasty things about him (but only when he's around his buddies who agree with him).

The result has been chaos in the Episcopal Church – ECUSA has lost large numbers of individuals and congregations, ecumenical relationships have been damaged and the denomination is now in a state of impaired communion with 22 of the 38 Anglican Provinces. The survival of the entire Anglican Communion is at stake,” he continued.

You might think that would bother a Christian bishop, but Griswold is obviously made of stronger stuff. He's post-Christian and you must obey whatever new anti-scriptural cause he says the Spirit is revealing - or else.

Griswold's obsession is more important to him than the God of the Bible, which ostensibly would have been the very foundation of his career choice. Unless, of course, he signed up planning to change all that.

To xJones: "What you said."

Between Griswold and the "fuzzy" fella' in the A of C's Chair, how can any Episcopalian/Anglican feel properly shepherded? I do not personally know Bishop Benitez but do know of him and find it very difficult to believe he deserves any form of chastisement. In a "blind" choice of who is on the correct side of any issue within the ECUSA or overall Anglican community, I'd go with Bishop Benitez over what appear to be two "pretenders" to their chairs.

Anglicans are clearly being challenged. To paraphrase Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life), this is a fight not be in but to win. (I think he says "we're not here to fight, we are here to win" regarding the end to abortion.) How does one support people like Bishop Benitez?

frank the heretic signed up to feel good about himself, oh, and others too, of course...that seems to be his goal in life, as well as the core of his theology, such as it is.

I've just emailed some folks who should be able to tell us the best way to support Bp Benitez and the other bishops who signed the letter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.