It is no secret that the idea to bring presentment charges on Bishop Stewart Wood of Michigan was mine. Unfortunately, it was the only option available. Yes, I admit other actions were suggested. A number had been used in the past, to no avail. In my mind no other option was left.

Over a four-year period, Bishop Wood and I discussed the issue of the ordination of practicing homosexuals as well as the blessing of same-sex relationships. Numerous letters were written. Resolutions were presented at conventions. A number of churches, including my own, withheld funds from the diocese. Even this had only a temporary effect. It was announced, for instance, that same-sex blessings were occurring in at least three parishes in the diocese. There was no doubt that the bishop had supported these actions. All the while we were asked to take no action on our side other than "dialogue" on the issue. Then several days before General Convention the ordination of a known practicing homosexual took place.

What option was left? Did we take this action because we disliked Stewart Wood? I can't speak for the others who signed the presentment but I like him. Unless I am mistaken I even believe he likes me. To take such action was gut wrenching. I knew it would hurt him but I also knew he felt so strongly committed to the cause of homosexual issues that he would continue his course.

Did we do it because we assumed that we would win the presentment? No. In fact, I believe all of us knew that there was very little likelihood such charges would prevail. Anyone who knows canon law knows that in spite of the specific charges - breaking constitution and canons, disregarding pronouncements of convention, etc. - the ruling would undoubtedly and expediently be that the issue was one of doctrine. And only the House of Bishops could rule on doctrine.

Secondly, we had no illusion as to the make-up of the commission that would investigate the charges. The Presiding Bishop has made his position on homosexual issues quite clear, both before and since General Convention. Many of us were taken by surprise that the report actually had "minority opinions."

Most of the laity who signed the presentment were from my parish. I have known them for more than 10 years. A few things should be known about them. First, they took a great risk. They knew that the status of their parish was being changed. We were a parochial mission. Our mother parish decided to sever ties with us, thus making the church a diocesan mission. The signers knew they were going to be under the direct control of the bishop and standing committee (the very standing committee which approved the "ordination"). They knew that on previous occasions, when they had withheld funds, pressure was put on our mother parish to withhold our funds. In spite of this, they signed the presentment.

Our critics would say that resistance to homosexual issues is a product of prejudice. I know my people, and while none of them is perfect, I can tell you they were not motivated by prejudice or malice. As is true of most Episcopalians, the signers take holy scripture seriously. They cannot understand how a church which professes that "holy scripture contains all things necessary for salvation" can ignore its own teaching. Nor could they understand how "Their Bishop" could do such a thing.

Several years ago when we were experiencing pressure because of my public stance against the bishop's support of same-sex blessings, I asked our rector's committee if they were angry at me. A period of silence passed. Then one member said, "Father, if you hadn't done it, I would have left the church." Not wanting to leave it at that, I went around the table and asked each member. All affirmed what the first person had said. They could not continue in a church that ignored its own teaching.

I also believe they understood that this is a core issue - a matter of the Episcopal Church's survival. They love this church, its liturgy, its intellectual freedom (yes, freedom), its dignity and order, and they didn't want to see it destroyed.

Why am I writing this now? Not long ago, 10 bishops signed a presentment against one of their own [TLC, Feb. 19 and April 23]. It wasn't done out of personal malice or prejudice. It wasn't done because they wanted to break fellowship with their friends. They had no other option. For the last 20 years the issue has been discussed, studied and debated. The proposed innovations and strange doctrine have been rejected time and time again. Yet the ordinations continue and liturgies for same-sex unions are developed.

It is not those 10 bishops who have thrown down the gauntlet but the proponents of the homosexual agenda. The bishops were left with no choice. Neither are we. There is no fence sitting. We can no longer pretend that the issue will go away. Either we stop these ordinations from happening or they will continue. If they continue, then we will have acknowledged that the teaching and holy scriptures of the church mean naught! Unfortunately, if any bishop is allowed to perform such ordinations, then the world will believe this is a teaching of the Episcopal Church.

These bishops need support, love and prayers. They need to hear words of encouragement. Much pressure will be brought upon them. It behooves us to encourage these bishops we know to stand up for the faith they believe and profess. o