This is by way of an interim report from the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen (near Houston, Texas). It's raining this morning, so I can't go for my regular jog. I thought I'd use the time to try to bring you all up to date on what has been happening.

I have been here now a week, having arrived last Wednesday, March 9, for the meeting of the Coalition known as Bishops Working for a Just Society (as described in my last note to UPCHAT). On Friday afternoon, the full House of Bishops meeting began. That evening, I participated in a gathering of the College for Bishops (for which I am on the faculty) with new bishops and their peer coaches. I have also helped make a presentation from the Standing Commission on Ministry Development on the proposed changes to Title III (the Ministry Canons) which will be brought to the next General Convention, and I joined with Jack Croneberger (the Bishop of Newark) and Keith Whitmore (the Bishop of Eau Claire) who serve with me on that Commission, to lead an Open Space (or Interest Group) session, here called a Miniversity, to receive input from other bishops about what is being proposed. I have also been working on the logistics and promotion of the meeting of 30-40 US Bishops with the Canadian House of Bishops in Windsor, Ontario at the end of April. And as usual, I have enjoyed singing in the Bishops Choir.

In addition, the House of Bishops has been dealing with studies and discussions about Confirmation in the Church (we explored a series of papers prepared by several bishops and theologians on the Theology Committee). We spent a morning hearing a report from the Nominating Committee for the next Presiding Bishop. We heard an extensive report from Episcopal Renewal and Development on Tsunami Relief efforts, including a dramatic slide presentation by Johncy Itty (who comes from South India and is now the Bishop of Oregon) depicting his travels to South Asia, touring the devastation. We have also had reports and discussion about developments of Training Programs for Safeguarding our Children (with regard to Sexual Misconduct Training), about initiatives to develop additional Anti-Racism Training resources, we passed a resolution to oppose funding inn the federal budget to support drilling for oil in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Before we leave, we will be discussing the very extensive revisions being proposed to Title IV (the Disciplinary Canons of the Church).

I have included reference to all of the above to set into context what is to follow. I am aware that the greatest hype to come out of this meeting will concern the response of this House of Bishops to the Windsor Report and the Communiqué which came out of the February meeting of the Primates in Ireland. (See my previous note to UPCHAT for more background information about this.)

Already, by last evening, the Living Church (an independent magazine which covers the Episcopal Church) has released on their web site, a highly inflammatory and inaccurate article about this meeting. I thought I should warn you not to believe what you read in The Living Church. The article lifts quotations from the meeting out of context, and presents an extremely distorted account. Even more distressing, the statements quoted were made in the context of a closed meeting of the House of Bishops, which means that one or more bishops present was tape recording the session, or taking copious notes, which were then given to The Living Church reporter. This violation of trust within our community will, no doubt, be discussed today at our session. (We had already agreed to spend time this morning talking about issues of trust in our midst). It's serious stuff. The good news is that a real effort is being made to bring these matters to the surface and to talk about them frankly and try to move towards some degree of reconciliation with those who are prepared to make this effort.

As I reported in my last note, Frank Griswold gave a carefully detailed narrative of his experience with the Primates at the meeting in Ireland in February. (It was that narrative which was so badly distorted in the Living Church article). As you will no doubt recall, the Primates have asked us (The Episcopal Church) to withdraw our representation on the Anglican Consultative Council until the meeting of the world-wide Lambeth Conference of Anglican/Episcopal Bishops in 2008 (this means that our three delegates - as well as those from Canada - would miss one meeting, to be held in England in June of 2005, and that to that same meeting, we would send representatives to make a presentation to explain the reasons we took the actions we did at our General Convention in Minneapolis in 2003). The Primates also asked Frank to "use his best influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage. There are also other features of the Communiqué which the Primates issued after their meeting in Ireland, including the call for a more extensive "listening process" by which gay and lesbian members of the Anglican Communion might be heard, especially in those parts of the world where there is so much misunderstanding and prejudice.

Needless to say, there has been extensive discussion and deliberation here at Camp Allen about how we might respond as a body to these requests. These conversations have been intense, and sometimes difficult. There have also been some remarkable moments, as when a broad based drafting committee emerged with a rather bold proposal. Over several days, and countless negotiations and working sessions, the House of Bishops approved a statement which has now been released to the press (through the Episcopal News Service). I will try to copy that off the Internet and include it in a separate note for you to review.

The statement passed is called "A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops". It proposes that the matter of our representation to the Anglican Consultative Council (the ACC) be deferred to consideration by the Executive Council of the national Church (since they are the ones who designate our representatives). It expresses again our deep regret for the pain that others in the Anglican Communion have felt due to our actions in Minneapolis (though it does not express regret that the actions were taken). With regard to the request that we have a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender relationship, the statement says that the Bishops of the Episcopal Church will withhold consent on *all* elections of bishops from *all* dioceses until our General Convention in 2006, when this matter can be deliberated with the wider Church. This is intended to avoid our having to single out any particular class or category of persons in our midst for discrimination, and to share the weight of this burden, while still sending a strong message to the world-wide Anglican Communion that we want to stay a part of the Communion. There are eleven dioceses which had planned to hold an election of a new bishop between now and the General Convention of 2006 (including Southern Ohio in our own Province V). It is presumed that these dioceses will all choose to postpone their elections to within 120 days of the General Convention so that, as according to our canons, General Convention will consider the consents. (The moratorium will expire at the time of the General Convention.) Further, the "Covenant Statement" clarifies that the General Convention in Minneapolis did not authorize any rites for the blessing of same gender relations (a misunderstanding by the Windsor Report), but it further does pledge the Bishops not to authorize any such liturgies and not to personally bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention. Finally, the statement addresses the violation of diocesan boundaries by bishops into dioceses other than their own, pledging that we will hold each other and bishops from elsewhere accountable for any such violation.

In the press releases you will see it reported that this "Covenant Statement" was passed by "nearly unanimously". I need to report to you that I am one of a very few bishops who voted against it. My reasons are that I am opposed to any such moratorium, because I feel it is a legislative restriction of the authentic discernment of diocesan communities. I further feel this is an inappropriate use of the Consent process. Bishops are asked to give consent as a kind of a check and balance, but not as a prime mover in the process. This feels to me like a unilateral action of the Bishops, thereby excluding any options by the rest of the Church (the House of Deputies, the Executive Council, diocesan conventions, and so on). In my opinion, this sort of proposal should have been taken to the next General Convention (or through some other forum) for deliberation by the whole Church. The canons allow the bishops to take this action, but I think it is a mis-use of power.

Obviously, this is a minority position, but I felt strongly enough about it to break ranks with the rest of the House of Bishops. I was not alone - but there weren't too many of us in that camp!

I will write again at the conclusion of the meeting. I just wanted to give you this update, since reports of our actions are already being given in the press, and I wanted you to hear from me as soon as possible.