Unless requested by the bishop of this diocese (which thing I fear), and considering that two of your members sit on the Diocesan Review Committee as effectual judges in this case, to report in open support of the presentment must only mean that you collectively or by majority view the charges leveled as having some merit. Since the presentment has already been made, certainly your approval of same should thus be perceived as a preliminary judgment that the charges are even more than legitimate?

I believe that this is meddlesome on your part and perhaps you might temper not only your approval of the process, but amend it to simply state that you have faith in an ecclesiastical trial process rather than so unashamedly show support of what may indeed be spurious findings, insinuations, and wholehearted falsehoods in this particular case.

I would imagine you are premature in support of either side in this matter since you have heretofore engendered the appearance of generosity and independence by virtue of being yourself somewhat oppressed as a more orthodox body. Either you are NOT an independent entity from the Bishop and a cleverly concealed minion, or you seem amazingly inappropriate.

Because I know of no other first hand accountings of what I am about to say (save those of Father Armstrong's), and because I do not expect to be certified to make a formal statement in the presentment ( having been neither deposed nor questioned as of this time) let me point out the following:

1. It is my belief that there is not a singular parish in The Episcopal Church that could withstand, unsullied, the scrutiny to which Grace and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church or Father Armstrong himself have been subjected these last twelve months. That after nine months of intensive investigation by a forensic Internal Revenue Auditor, an ending in an inhibition and presentment citing "misapplications of funds"-- rather than the current public diocesan claim of overt theft-- is testimony to the complexity of our parish's finances. That reportedly over $200,000.00 in auditing costs has thus far been incurred in this matter by the Diocese of Colorado is astonishing. The diocesan demands of confidentiality in the entire investigative process has been exploitative, repressive, and disproportionate rather than consistent with the intent of Canon rule in my opinion.

2. That in the first nine months of the investigation, no attempt to contact the vestry members, staff, clergy (including Father Armstrong, himself) would have occurred to garner more in depth information is more than a curiosity and probably is a sinister convolution considering the direction the Matthew 18 approach to Christian manners scripture encourages. That questioning of principals did not occur until after presentment indicates the investigative process more conspiratorial than open. Where is the pastoral leadership in this sort of adversarial behavior? I find no Timothy imitation of hospitality, patience, non- brawler, non- covetous nor unprideful reproachlessness here. Is this not indicting?

3. That the vestry and staff and clergy of Grace and St. Stephen's would be sufficiently subverted into a continued state of unrest and anxiety and be embroiled in the hegemony of the Bishop's paranoia of a rector using hard-won monies intended for our general worship and outreach functions with no specific charges being delineated and with no reasonable hope or expectation of ever seeing those charges detailed (despite repeated formal requests for concrete evidence) was not only demoralizing and internally destructive to our parish, but continues even now to split an otherwise cohesive and focused body of worship. There are Marxian parallels here that approach a manifesto.

4. If only partly because of the resilience of the vestry established at Grace Church, the Grace of an Almighty God, and through the efforts of our indefatigable Rector, our body and most of its parishioners whom we represent have now had a chance to review the charges laid, assess the purported misapplications and supposed misappropriations that have been alleged to have occurred; and we who have more intimate knowledge and day-to-day understanding of the retrospective review of the so-called "forensic accountant's" and several diocesan attorneys' statements, have concluded that virtually one hundred percent of the accusations against our trustees, staff, wardens, auditors, vestry, clergy, and most especially our Rector, have no merit whatsoever.

5. That outrageously inappropriate, reactionary and abusive attacks from our diocese through its bishop would occur (for example, the issuance of a Solemn Admonition from Bishop O'Neill and delivered to our Associate Rector through an investigator because of a mutually rescheduled interview !); and by virtue of first hand reports from our various attorneys, our wardens and staff members attending the Diocesan Standing Committee's initial deliberations in December; and from an assessment that any decision to proceed with presentment was pre-determined and directed by the heavy hand of misguided ecclesiastical authority, the vestry of Grace and St. Stephen's has carefully and thoughtfully and prayerfully ascertained that a fair trial in this venue and especially under the present hierarchical arrangement is at best an impossibility.

6. Expecting an impending dissolution of our governing body by so monomaniacal an entity as we believed to be in motion, and with the expectation of an imminent demotion of our parish to mission status, the vestry unfortunately met with no other hope forthcoming save that of the saving grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and has found desirable an alternative episcopal oversight which we hope might at least allow Truth to be honored and to be spoken within the court of public opinion and amongst the communion at large to preserve our parish.

I believe now that egregious inhibitory declarations having being averted, and a venue at least among our own parishioners, if not the fellowship of Christian believers at large, and under what we believe is a more congenial and pastoral ecclesiastical authority, we might preserve our parish body largely intact, God willing. That the presentment of Father Armstrong should proceed under the auspices of The Episcopal Church and Title IV of its Canons is clear and certainly my desire.

At least now, a more fair and unified response from all of us involved can proceed without interruption of our corporate worship and the ever present threat of dissolution or demotion and reorganization of our parish. We do understand that our parish and its existence may not be such a valuable thing to Our Lord, nor are we fully convinced that He might not yet allow us to be destroyed for His greater good. That we might suffer for His sake the ignominy and discomfiture of these present grievous events is, I believe, considered by this vestry to be but a small thing when we stand for Truth and the hope of an everlasting crown beyond the temporal beauty of our present location in the sanctified space of Grace and St. Stephen's Church.

As for the two members of the Communion Laity and Clergy of Colorado that have deliberative authority amongst you, it is my fervent prayer that God Almighty may open your eyes to be cognizant that diabolical plots may not all be fantasies, and that decisions of great importance need be made with good and sound testimony. Much of the testimony in defense of the Grace and St. Stephen's parish and its rector will now be necessarily available outside the deliberative hall of the Diocesan Review Committee.

May God bless you and your efforts to promote the Truth and preserve the incredible Gospel message of Our Lord Jesus Christ's death for our sins and His glorious confirmatory resurrection this Eastertide. May you be a bulwark for the whole Truth and may we all be worthy to suffer for what is righteous in our Lord's eyes. I hope I have not wasted your time herewith and I am in all humility and sincerity

Your Fellow Servant of Our Lord,

Keith W. Stampher, M.D.,
Member of Grace and St. Stephens Vestry