Let us deal with the matters set out in the Presiding Bishop's letter. The Presiding Bishop indicates that "the circulation of the letter to me and the Archbishop of Canterbury has been reported by The Living Church."

An important point must be made here: the letters were sent, not circulated. They were indeed sent on a private basis, and intended for their recipients only.

The signatories agreed in advance not to release them publicly in any way. None of the signatories has commented on these letters since they were sent. Until now. How these letters became known to the Living Church or any other medium concerns the signatories no less than the Presiding Bishop.

The Living Church has confirmed to us that not one of the signatories was responsible in any way for putting either of the letters before that journal. The Presiding Bishop expresses his sense that it was "extremely discourteous" to himself personally and to his Office not to have been copied on the letter to the Archbishop. Why this should be the case is an open question.

The letters clearly contain the same substance. They differ only in the specific request made to each recipient. Since neither request was dependent on the other, or based on information disclosed to one and not the other, it is hard to see how any discourtesy is involved.

At any rate, no such discourtesy was intended on the part of any signatory, and I am sure that I am not alone in expressing regret for any discourtesy perceived.

The Presiding Bishop says that the concerns of the signatories were "quite properly addressed" to himself. But the implication that this is not the case with respect to doing so with "primates of other provinces" ignores the fact that our own Ordinal specifically states that bishops "share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world." (BCP, p. 517) Surely this includes the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Presiding Bishop declares that no such appeals to "primates of other provinces can excuse us from the hard work of living the mystery of Christ's reconciling love within our own province." This is quite true for the signatories as well. And nothing in these letters suggests otherwise.

The letters expressed a desire, indeed, to work straightforwardly and truthfully toward "the welfare of all members of the Episcopal Church" and to "walk together" with each other and those in the larger Communion.

These letters were an effort to bring these concerns to their recipients. The Presiding Bishop's final substantive paragraph raises putative divisions among the signatories as to the course of action to be pursued. On the one hand, he says, there are those who "are clearly committed to the ongoing life of the Episcopal Church;" while on the other are those who "question if, in fact, there is a way forward other than walking apart from the Episcopal Church while seeking a way to remain within the Anglican Communion."

This is a misrepresentation of the positions of the signatories and an attempt to divert the basic question raised by the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, the latter of which the Presiding Bishop himself signed.

The issue is not about any of the signatories "walking apart" from the Episcopal Church, but the Episcopal Church "walking apart" from the rest of the Anglican Communion.

The primary concern of the signatories, expressed clearly in both letters for any who have eyes to see, is that "God grant to this whole Church the wisdom and humility to sustain the mission and ministry we share".

The Presiding Bishop lifts up the "spirit established at Camp Allen and our Covenant." The signatories in both letters did the same, praising the Camp Allen experience as "a generous and gracious attempt to seek common ground."

But they went on to face squarely "the very fact that we need such a Covenant reminds us that our divisions are deep." To have remained silent in the context of these divisions would have been an abrogation of duty on the part of the Bishops who sent these letters - and their requests to the recipients for a course of action involving and appropriate to each, a sincere and honest exercise of duty.

Twenty-one bishops are still waiting for a substantive response.

--The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton is Bishop of Dallas