This decision arises from my understanding of the promises I made at my ordination as a bishop. I promised to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church. I also promised to share in the governance of the whole Church. To me, the vow to guard the faith, unity and discipline outweighs governance, in that a disregard for unity and discipline makes governance impossible.

The House of Bishops lacks the discipline to govern itself with any degree of authenticity. I offer these specific examples:

1. At the Kanuga meeting in the spring of 2003, the House enthusiastically supported (without vote) the report of the Theology Committee of the House which recommended that this was not a good time to address issues of homosexuality through the legislative process. Three months later a majority of the House reversed itself, including many of the framers of the Theology report itself.

2. At our last meeting, two days were consumed with discussion and resolutions about alternative oversight and about confirmation services in Ohio. As the Spokane meeting approaches, I have not observed any bishops offering disciplinary resolutions concerning the ‘marriage’ of a divorced, retired bishop and a partners. Between the two of them, five failed marriages are represented. We have disciplined bishops for extra-marital affairs, but we fail to address the divorce and remarriage of bishops. We have never addressed the moral implications of homosexuality as it pertains to members of the House. The future seems clear. There will be sporadic and unfocussed discipline for selected heterosexual issues, but silence on homosexual issues, and silence on issues of divorce and remarriage for members. This moral inconsistency is quite disturbing.

3. Two bishops celebrated public same sex union blessings against the expressed objections of many people. This is also of deep concern to many of our overseas partners. I doubt that this will be the topic of debate or resolutions in Spokane.

4. One bishop has given a pastoral directive to his clergy forbidding them to join the AAC. Will this violation of the civil rights of clergy be the topic of a resolution?

5. It took the threat of a press conference to persuade one bishop to allow another bishop to baptize a grandchild in another diocese.

Thus, my conclusion is that the House of Bishops is more concerned with ecclesial boundaries and provincial prerogatives that with the deep divisions in the Body of Christ.

The faith of the Church inheres in Christ through the scriptures, creeds and the Book of Common Prayer, as does the doctrine of the church. By consenting to the New Hampshire consecration, the House of Bishops has endangered the future of the Anglican Communion. Further, by approving the consecration before authorizing a rite to celebrate the relationship in which that person lives signals deliberate disregard for the order of the Church. Doing so against the expressed request of all the instruments for unity in the Anglican Communion is arrogant. Doing so against the strenuous objections of our ecumenical and interfaith partners is a break in the unity to which we are called. By comparison, the Episcopal Church’s decision is not unlike the United States foreign policy regarding Iraq.

My sisters and brothers, it causes me great sadness to have to write this letter to you. However, at this time, I believe that my presence at the House of Bishops would lend credence that I have acquiesced in the decisions of Genral Convention and in the continuing disregard for the Church Catholic by many members of this House. Further, this is the only orderly means of public and prophetic protest I have at the present. I pray there will be no confusion as to why I am not in attendance, nor speculation about my motives or affiliation with any organisation other than the Episcopal Church. With firm conviction in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with deepest regret, I remain

Faithfully yours,

Francis C. Gray
Assistant Bishop
Diocese of Virginia
cc. The Most Rev and Rt Honourable Rowan Williams