wfn.org | Letter of the Presiding Bishop regarding presentment charges against Bishop Dixon

[ENS@ecunet.org]

2001-193

Letter of the Presiding Bishop regarding presentment charges against Bishop Dixon

     July 23, 2001

     For the House of Bishops

     My dear Brothers and Sisters:

     Though many of you will be aware of this, I wanted to communicate with you 
myself about the following matter. On July 16 I received two virtually identical 
charges against the Rt. Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon, bishop Suffragan and Diocesan 
Bishop pro tempore, of the Diocese of Washington. One charge was filed with me by 
three retired diocesan bishops, Bishops Allison (South Carolina), Benitez 
(Texas), and Wantland (Eau Claire): the other was filed by a group of clergy and 
laity from both within and without the Diocese. The complaints allege that Bishop 
Dixon violated certain canons of the Church in connection with the calling 
process of the vestry of Christ Church, Accokeek, Maryland, and the vestry's 
contracting with the Rev. Samuel Edwards of the Diocese of Fort Worth to be 
rector of the parish.

     Under the canons of the Church, if an amicable, non-judicial resolution of 
the matters that are the subject of the charges cannot be achieved, I am called 
to forward the charges to the Episcopal Disciplinary Review Committee for further 
handling. The Review Committee, which is appointed at the start of each Triennium 
for the Triennium by the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of 
Deputies, is made up of five bishops, two members of the clergy, and two members 
of the laity. Under Canon IV.3, it is the duty of the Review Committee to 
"convene to consider the Charge(s)," and if the Committee "determines that an 
Offense may have occurred if the facts alleged be true," to cause an 
investigation to be made by the Church Attorney so that the Committee may 
consider "whether or not a Presentment shall issue." Ultimately, then, the role 
of the Review Committee is, after careful consideration, to issue a presentment 
or dismiss the charges.

     The dispute that has led to the recently-submitted complaints has been much 
before us over these last months. It has been painful to many and disruptive to 
the work of the Diocese. Moreover, these events are transpiring at a particularly 
unfortunate time in that the Diocese is proceeding toward the election of a new 
diocesan bishop in January 2002, just six months away. Given these circumstances, 
I forwarded the charges to the Review Committee on July 20, and asked the 
Committee to turn to this matter as soon as possible, and to do its work on an 
expedited basis. 

     I want to assure you that there have been efforts at mediating this dispute, 
and although they have not been successful, I continue to hope that further 
informal discussions could produce a resolution.

     As Paul tells us, when one member of the Body suffers, we all suffer, and 
therefore I ask each of you to hold all those involved in this situation in your 
prayers.

     Yours ever in Christ,

     Frank T. Griswold