June 23, 2004

It is after much work and heartfelt prayer that I bring before you tonight a proposal for the highest level of communion possible, at this moment in time, between us, given our differences. I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement tonight for how to move forward with putting these arrangements in place, so that you and I may stop spending time on our divisions, and get on with bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to a world that needs and longs to hear it.

I have done my best to set aside your comments of May 24 calling my last proposal to you "totally inadequate and insufficient." You may be interested to know that very conservative bishops across the church and across the world - including, I might add, the Primate of Ireland and head of the Lambeth/Eames Commission and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself - wrote to tell me how generous they thought my proposal to you was.

Instead, I have prayed about how far I can go in allowing you to have what you request. You must understand the thin line I am walking here. To allow a Network bishop to come into the diocese as your visiting bishop is to invite someone here whose affiliation is with an organization whose stated aim is to supplant the Episcopal Church as an equal, if not the only, true _expression of Anglicanism in the USA.

Nevertheless, because our faith calls on us to be instruments of reconciliation, and because I believe in God's power to bridge all divisions, I am now proposing to you the following plan for our life together here in the Diocese of New Hampshire:

Pastoral Oversight according to DEPO

You rejected all 22 bishops' names I proposed to you, without ever making contact with any of them - even one of the founding bishops of the American Anglican Council. Instead you asked me whether or not you could have a bishop affiliated with the so-called "Network of Anglican Communion of Dioceses and Parishes." I asked Gerry DeLemus for a listing of these bishops. The Rev. Bill Murdoch, an office-holder in the Network, was also asked for a list of these bishops. Neither provided such a listing. After thoroughly investigating the Network's public website, we still could not find such a listing. However, you did mention three bishops who would be to your liking. I called one of them, Bishop Herzog, Bishop of Albany, to inquire whether or not he would be willing to come into the Diocese of New Hampshire at my request, to provide Pastoral Oversight according to the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight plan developed by the House of Bishops. I did this in part because Bishop Herzog has written that he has "supported the House of Bishops Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" and believes "it needs to be tried before it is declared a failure." In talking with him, I believe that he means it.

Bishop Herzog says he has the time and the inclination to help me and the Church of the Redeemer. His only hesitation is to enter into these negotiations without knowing who the priest in charge will be, and asked to know who that is before committing to this task. (More on that next.) Once established, if acceptable to him, he is willing to sit down with me, the priest in charge, and the wardens, to work out the written agreement between us about how this will work, what he will be permitted to do under the agreement, and what I will retain as the jurisdictional bishop. Church of the Redeemer would be responsible for Bishop Herzog's travel, other related expenses incurred by Bishop Herzog, and appropriate honoraria. Bishop Herzog expressed his ability and desire to work within the two "bottom lines" I have set: that he not do anything as visiting bishop to undermine my authority as the Bishop Diocesan of New Hampshire, and to do nothing that would assist Redeemer, Rochester, in leaving the Episcopal Church. I am deeply grateful to Bishop Herzog for his kindness and willingness to work with me on meeting the needs and desires of Redeemer, Rochester.

Priest in Charge

I have also been praying long and hard about who might be your priest. As you know, I have provided several priests to you, to the best of my ability attempting to give you someone who agrees with you on the issue of homosexuality. Your current priest, The Rev. Gordon Allen, came out of retirement at my request, and has served you well for several months. However, he told me at the beginning that he would only do so for a while. It is time for him to go back to enjoying his retirement. A few weeks ago, he called me to offer some advice, as a faithful priest of the church and a faithful member of this diocese for many, many years. His advice: consider reinstating the license of The Rev. Don Wilson, and appoint him priest-in-charge.

I was open to this suggestion. In fact, immediately following my investiture as diocesan bishop, when asked some months ago by Sr. Warden Gerry DeLemus whether or not I would consider reinstating Don Wilson as priest in charge, I had indicated that indeed I was open to considering that. I suggested that he be in touch with Don Wilson at that time, and propose meeting with me. I never heard anything from either one of them about following up on that possibility.

As you know, the relationship between Don and the former Bishop of New Hampshire was a stormy one, ending in Bishop Theuner's revoking Don's license to officiate in the Diocese of New Hampshire. After much prayer, I called Don to see if he would be willing to meet with me, privately and informally, to talk about this possibility. I did not want to propose Don to the vestry as possible priest-in-charge without knowing if he and I could work together. For all I knew, he might have said "Forget it!" In fact, he did not say that, but instead agreed to meet with me. A few hours before the meeting, my office was informed by FAX that three vestry members would be accompanying Don to the meeting. Our private meeting had become public.

Our meeting went well. It is clear to me that Don loves and cares for the people of Redeemer, Rochester. He has served you well in the past, and I believe he could serve you well again. He has stated his willingness to abide by my two bottom lines: that he do nothing to undermine my authority as the Bishop, and that he not assist in any way any attempt to take Redeemer from the Episcopal Church. I also said that I would need to know that when I called the parish, that he would take my calls and speak with me. He said he would do that.

Consequently, I come to you tonight offering my willingness to reinstate the license to officiate to the Rev. Don Wilson, if you should approve his appointment as your priest-in-charge. That decision having been made, I would make arrangements for Bishop Herzog, Don Wilson and the wardens to sit down with me and work out the details of our DEPO arrangement.

The nature of our relationship - the other side of DEPO

I have told you that I would do whatever I could, within reason and within the canons, to meet your needs. To further our relationship, I require very little:

Relationship with Bishop

1. The DEPO document states that "We expect that the first priority in a relationship between a diocesan bishop and congregation is a striving for unity. As such, it is incumbent upon both the bishop and the rector/congregation to meet together...to find ways to work together." It further states, "When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation."

To this end, I am requesting that you invite me to at least one informal, parish-wide event per year. You state that you "see no basis for such a requirement, either in the canons or in the House of Bishops' plan." It is not a requirement of the canons or the plan. Christian fellowship, and attempts to heal divisions within the Body of Christ, are, however, requirements of Jesus Christ, as attested to in Holy Scripture. Indeed, we are warned to lay down our offerings and go and make peace with our brothers and sisters, before making our sacrifice at the altar of God. How are we going to ever be reconciled to one another if we never meet? I am only asking that we share a potluck supper together and perhaps some Bible study and prayer. This seems like an act of mutual hospitality that would make Jesus happy.

2. As you know, I am required by the national canons (Title III, Canon 18, Sec. 4a, b, c) to make an official visitation to each congregation once every three years. I will not schedule that visitation until the last three months of the three year period beginning at my investiture as Ninth Bishop of New Hampshire (March 7, 2004). Please note that in my previous proposal, that time frame was listed as between January 1 and March 7, 2006. In fact, the correct year is 2007.

I would be happy to welcome Bishop Herzog (or whoever is your visiting bishop at the time) to be present - indeed, I would welcome him as concelebrant at the eucharist if he so chose.

Even if this visitation is not acceptable to some members of the congregation, let's remember that we are talking about my being present liturgically for one hour, every three years, to fulfill the canons. This does not seem too much to ask, in the spirit of reconciliation.

Relationship with Diocese

3. I appreciate your expressed willingness to abide by the diocesan and national canons of the Church, and to participate in the life of the Diocese of New Hampshire - at a minimum, by sending elected delegates to our Diocesan Convention and submitting a timely parochial report. I would hope you might consider other ways as well, including being related to some of your neighboring Episcopal congregations.

4. DEPLOYMENT: For the moment, if you accept the service of Don Wilson, you will have a priest, and therefore, the deployment issue is a ways off. However, when that moment comes about, I cannot and will not delegate that authority to anyone else. I have to live with the choices of clergy made by congregations, and the canons clearly state that I have veto power over any choice of any parish. The actions of any priest in this diocese are my responsibility and my liability, and these cannot be delegated.

On the other hand, I have no problem with asking the visiting bishop for his input, suggestions, advice and assistance in submitting names to the Search Committee. Although it is not the custom in this diocese for the Bishop to be intimately involved in a search process, if you wanted the assistance of such a visiting bishop, I would have no problem with that. But I will not relinquish or delegate my right to be a part of that process as well, retaining the canonical requirement of my approval of an election (National Canon Title III, Canon 9, Sec. 3a, 1-4, and 3b; Diocesan Canon 14, Sec. 2).

I have no intention nor desire to foist upon you someone with whom you cannot or will not work, and someone from whom you will not receive priestly ministrations. I am trying to help you here. But I cannot relinquish the responsibilities laid on me by the Church, the canons, and my vows as a bishop.

Review

5. By the nature of our polity, and because DEPO is expressly authored as a temporary measure ("This is to be understood as a temporary arrangement, the ultimate goal of which is the full restoration of the relationship between the congregation and their bishop."), these arrangements would be renewed annually.

DEPO goes on to stipulate: "When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation. The plan shall include expectations of all parties, especially mutual accountability. The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews." The vestry, priest in charge, and a member of my staff (probably The Rev. Canon Tim Rich) will need to sit together and ask "How is this working? What needs to be changed?" These arrangements may prove unacceptable or unworkable to the vestry, the priest in charge, the visiting bishop or the Bishop. A yearly review would allow adjustments to be made. I cannot agree to making these arrangements permanent, as you propose. Furthermore, changes may be made in national or diocesan canons, requiring changes in our arrangements.

Hope for reconciliation

I think that you will acknowledge that this proposal represents a huge shift on my part in what I am willing to offer. I hope that we can come to an agreement this evening, so that I can move forward in negotiations with Bishop Herzog and Father Wilson. I would begin with Father Wilson, so that you can solve the problem of clergy leadership, licensed by the Diocese, as soon as possible. Upon our favorable arrangements, then Don, the wardens and I would get together with Bishop Herzog to work out the details of a plan for delegated episcopal pastoral oversight.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. I have done everything I can think of to be open and hospitable toward your requests. I believe that God desperately wants our reconciliation - and if that cannot happen in its fullness, then God wants us at least to move, however tentatively, in that direction. By God's grace, and with God's help, I believe we can do that.

Your brother in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson

Bishop of New Hampshire