Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has recognized as the true Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh those who refused to secede Saturday with the majority of local Episcopalians into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America.

She confirmed the Rev. James Simons and two others as the “rightful Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” The Standing Committee governs in the absence of a bishop. The Rev. Simons, rector of St. Michael of the Valley, Ligonier, was the only member of the previous Standing Committee to oppose secession.

Both dioceses now call themselves “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”

“The presiding bishop’s word today was certainly welcome news,” said Rich Creehan, spokesman for the U.S.-based Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Read the whole thing.

[Jim] Simons and [Andrew] Roman contacted Jefferts Schori by email to tell her what had happened and to ask her to consult with the Standing Committee about providing episcopal assistance for the diocese. The Presiding Bishop replied with her recognition of Simons, Murph and Roehrich as the diocesan Standing Committee and told them that she had asked Clayton Matthews, bishop for pastoral development, to assist help them obtain that assistance.

“I give thanks for the work that the Standing Committee has undertaken and look forward to learning of your progress as you move forward in this mission,” Jefferts Schori said in her letter. “You and the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh continue in my prayers and those of Episcopalians across this church.”

Jefferts Schori has also written to each of the former members of the Standing Committee, notifying them that they are no longer part of the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh Standing Committee became the ecclesiastical authority on September 19 when Duncan’s deposition prevented him from exercising his authority in the diocese.

Read it all.

On Wednesday afternoon, I received a phone call from David Wilson, President of the Standing Committee, informing me that in 15 minutes there would be a conference call with the other seven members and that they intended to remove me from the Standing Committee. Two reasons were given. First, I had not accepted my letter of transfer to the Southern Cone. Actually, I had missed the announcement at convention and the letter was never offered to me. When I returned home that evening I found it in the mail having been sent the previous day. The second reason given was that my parish, St. Michael’s, appeared on this web site as having decided to stay in the Episcopal Church. I was not asked to join the conference call and was offered no due process. I do not recognize the authority that purported to take these actions. Providentially at that moment, I was meeting with key leaders of the Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church. After I reported the phone call to those assembled, and with the advice of the Diocesan Chancellor, I immediately appointed two new members to the Standing Committee, which the canons give me the authority to do. This was done at 2:44 P.M. I am pleased to announce that Ms. Mary Roehrich and The Rev. Jeff Murph, who were in attendance at the meeting, immediately accepted those appointments.

Later in the day, I received a letter by e-mail from David Wilson informing me that the remaining seven members of his Standing Committee consider themselves to be aligned with the Province of The Southern Cone.

This information was conveyed to the Presiding Bishop’s office and today we received recognition as the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in the Episcopal Church and because of the absence of a Bishop, the ecclesiastical authority.

Read it all.

Dear Jim,

Now that the Diocese has voted to amend its Constitution and align with the Province of the Southern Cone, it is our duty on the Standing Committee to faithfully serve as the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority within that organizational structure.

Your recent letter “to the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” makes clear that you do not believe that you have this duty, but rather that you feel called to a different duty ”“ to challenge the validity of the Diocese’s realignment. Your October 6 letter to the members of the Standing Committee also reflects this perspective.

I fully understand that your position on these issues is a matter of personal conviction. Nonetheless, I must sorrowfully conclude that your letters (and other actions) are a violation of your obligations as a member of the Diocese’s Standing Committee. Further, your actions, and the Resolution of your parish which you have already forwarded to the Diocese, make clear that you are no longer qualified to be a member of the Standing Committee under Article IX, section 2 of the Diocesan Constitution. Accordingly, I am calling a special meeting of the Standing Committee to fill the vacancy left by your departure.

Read it all.

This we will speak about, learn about, and engage together in the coming days, months, and years. As you know, the Vestry of St. Andrew’s has expressed with clarity that our parish will continue as a parish within the Episcopal Church, and will not recognize or participate in the organization of the “realigned diocese.”

On leaving St. Martin’s this afternoon canonically resident Pittsburgh clergy were asked to take certificates licensing them as deacons or priests of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in the Southern Cone Province, and I declined to receive the one with my name on it. As I have indicated to you, I will remain a priest of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A.

Again: much sadness, and a sense of profound loss. I personally have expressed my deep respect and love for many dear friends and colleagues who have chosen today to walk in a different direction–and my hope and prayer that in many ways the spirit of friendship and shared ministry that we have known in the past may be able to continue. But of course there will be changes, and it will be necessary to move forward to the new challenges that await us without being overly-encumbered by what lies in our past. We’ll have to figure that out as we go on.

Read it all.

The charges against Duncan were initiated by Pittsburgh Episcopalians who feared he would lead the diocese into secession and take church property with him.

Duncan “has rejected numerous opportunities and warnings to reconsider and change course,” said the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh in a statement. “Instead, he has continued to resolutely pursue a course of action designed to remove this diocese and many unwilling Episcopalians from the Episcopal Church.”

Elected bishop of the 20,000-member diocese 11 years ago, Duncan has been a prominent voice for conservative Episcopalians distraught over the liberal drift of the church on biblical interpretation and sexual ethics. He leads the Anglican Communion Network, a conservative network that claims some ten dioceses and 900 congregations in North America.

Duncan is the second Episcopal bishop removed from active ministry this year. In January, Fresno bishop John-David Schofield was deposed for leading the San Joaquin diocese to secede.

Read it all.

After an overwhelming vote here over the weekend by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that created the second schism with the national church since the 2003 election and consecration of an openly gay Episcopal bishop, both sides were hoping for a simple resolution.

“If the national church would stay out of it, we could work it out,” said the Rev. Jonathan Millard, who favored secession and led the convention on Saturday. “And I think 90 percent of the churches here would agree with me.”

Mr. Millard was referring to that most secular of issues: resolving who owns what among the millions of dollars’ worth of diocesan and parish property.

It is a huge concern for both sides after the vote on Saturday, which realigned the majority of the 74 parishes of the Pittsburgh diocese with a more conservative branch of the church in South America. On Saturday, 119 of 191 lay members voted in favor of leaving the national church, as did 121 of 160 clergy members.

Read it all.

The Rev. George Werner of Sewickley, a loyalist and a former top official of the Episcopal Church, said the denominations headquarters in New York was “to be advised” by local Episcopalians.

“Many people, myself included, want to make sure that [national leaders] don’t slam a bishop in here who will tear us to shreds,” he said, an acknowledgement that many Episcopal loyalists are also conservative.

There is agreement that at least 17 parishes will not join the Southern Cone; and the Rev. Simons believes it could go as high as 28. Both sides also agree that many parishes on both sides are likely to lose some members to the other side. The Rev. Werner believes that splits in small churches could cause 20 to 30 of them to fail altogether.

Bishop Duncan did not lead the meeting, celebrate the Eucharist or preach, though mention of his name brought several long ovations.

Read it all.

“This is a sad day,” said the Rev. James Simons, the only member of the diocese’s Standing Committee, the top administrative body, who voted against seceding. “They took the convention’s theme, ”˜A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand,’ and today caused the Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh to be divided indeed.”

Mr. Simons, who will lead a reconstitution of the diocese with the national church, said at least 16 of the 74 parishes in the Pittsburgh diocese were expected to stay with the national church.

The Pittsburgh diocese is the second, after the Diocese of San Joaquin in Fresno, Calif., to vote to leave the national church. At least two other dioceses, in Fort Worth and Quincy, Ill., are scheduled to vote on seceding in November.

The movement is driven by theologically conservative leaders who believe the church has turned away from traditional biblical teachings on issues like whether Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation.

Read it all.

Sermon ”“ Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention October 4, 2008

This year is different. For as long as I can remember diocesan convention has been held the first week in November: As it comes it always reminds me to remember my wedding anniversary, also in the first week of November. November 3rd to be exact or is it November 2nd ? And every year Gale asks me where are we going to dinner for our anniversary? And I say, “To a hotel ballroom for a scrumptious meal! And you can even have your choice of beef tips over noodles, stuffed chicken breast or vegetable lasagna!
I have attended every diocesan and special convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh since 1982, save one, that is, in 1985 when Gale and I and our family resided in Fairfax VA. This is my 26th diocesan convention either as a lay member or as a presbyter of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. If anyone is a son of this diocese, it is me. I came to Christ here as an Episcopalian, I was raised up for ministry here as an Episcopalian and I have ministered as a layman in three parishes and also as an ordained pastor in three parishes, and I interviewed to be rector in two others in the diocese though not called (now there’s two parishes that knew what they were doing!), I have preached in at least 20 different parishes in our diocese and have visited over sixty. I have served on more committees, task forces, Cursillo teams and diocesan search committees than I can remember, I been on Diocesan Council and served on the Standing Committee —now as the President. In short, I spent my whole Christian life here in this diocese as an Episcopalian. There is no other diocese that has claimed me and no other diocese I have ever desired to be part of. I am thoroughly a Pittsburgh Anglican — I bleed Stiller Black and Gold.
For the previous twenty-five conventions I sat out there and faced this way during Convention sermons and addresses. Now in this my twenty-sixth instead of standing with you I now stand before you and so I ask your prayers that I might be adequate to the task that I have called to do.
This morning I would like to reflect on our gospel lesson from Matthew chapter 14 that Karen just read. I want to hone in on verse 27 “Jesus immediately said to them [his disciples] Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid”.
Three short sentences, no sentence more than three words — Take courage! —It is I. — Don’t be afraid.
First sentence: “Take courage”. It took courage for Peter to get of the boat and walk on the water, to attempt something he had never done before, something beyond his human experience, something outside of his comfort zone –something beyond his rational, cognitive being — something that takes total faith and trust. The safe place is in the boat. The safe place will always be in the boat. Getting out of the boat is risky and being a risk taker requires courage. A well known Anglican evangelist once said there are three kind of “takers” in this world, caretakers, undertakers and risk takers. If nothing else Peter was a risk taker. Throughout the scriptures risk-taking for the sake of Christ was one of Peter’s most admirable qualities and God wants us to be risk takers for him too.
What does it mean to have courage. The word itself comes from the French word for heart “coeur”. Literally to have courage means to have heart or to take heart. The dictionary defines courage this way: it is the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, without fear; bravery. Some synonyms are fearlessness, acting with daring and an intrepid boldness, pluck, spirit, “guts”. What we are about to do in this convention will take courage. It will take courage from all of us, both clergy and laity and both re-aligners and re-organizers. It is a courageous act to acknowledge the truth — to acknowledge that our differences cannot be reconciled without one side or the other capitulating to the other. That will not happen ”“nor should it. Among other things, many in the majority and many in the minority have diametrically different beliefs about the nature of sin, about the meaning and scope of salvation and about the authority and interpretation of Scripture. To be true to our beliefs, it would be far better to bless each other in separating, each going our own way than to continue the internecine warfare of winner-take-all. It will take courage to let each other go and to bless each other in the going. We have an opportunity today to make this convention a testimony to love and forbearance among brothers and sisters in Christ. To be a blessing to each other. Do we have the courage to do it? Will we do it? Can we forgo parliamentary shenanigans that in the end will cause more pain and more distrust and bless nobody? Can we get on with it decently and in order?
One of the watchwords from our bishop, first spoken in the fall of 2003, has been — Courage breeds Courage. These words, when first uttered, instantly transversed the whole of the Anglican Communion. They inspired many, including me. But I don’t believe they were meant simply for one side or the other in the divide we find ourselves, but for all of us in this Diocese. Does the courage of Nano Chalfont Walker inspire me to be courageous: it does. Does the courage of Mary Hays encourage Bruce Robison to be courageous, I believe it does. Does the courage of Doug Wicker inspire Doug Toth and vice versa ”“ I believe it does. We may be opponents today but can we be worthy opponents. That is, can we be opponents that honor God and honor each other even as we disagree and as we separate. Can we be amicable as opposed to hostile, even in the midst of strongly held views. That takes heart. That takes courage.
In November 2005 over 3,000 Anglican Christians gathered in Pittsburgh including hundreds from our diocese at the “Hope and A Future Conference”, last month about 300 Anglican Christians from our diocese gathered in Mount Lebanon at the “A Hopeful Future” meeting. Each side is looking to its own future and looking to its future with hope and with confidence. Now is the time for both sides to put the strife of the past behind us and bless each other’s efforts to make their hope a reality.
With courage Peter was able to get out of the boat and walk on the water. When he became afraid ”“ he sank. Will we operate today courageously or fearfully? Will we bless or curse? Will we walk or will we sink? It’s our choice to make.
Second short sentence, “It is I” Jesus reminds Peter of who it is that is calling to him. Only one person calls and only one person saves. ””Jesus Christ. The scriptures say Salvation is found in no one else[than Jesus], for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.” Without Christ we flounder. The writer to the Hebrews reminds us in chapter 12 verse 2, Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith As long as Peter kept his eyes fixed on Jesus he was able to walk on the water but when he began to focus on the storm about him, he sank. Our text says But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”
Shortly after hearing the news of Bishop Duncan’s deposition, I received an email from the Rt. Rev. Stanley Ntagali of Bishop Masindi-Kitara diocese, who had preached in my parish early last month, he wrote, Dear Rev. David: My wife Beatrice and I would like to assure you and the entire Diocese of Pittsburgh that we are praying for you at this very difficult moment in the history of your Diocese. We know how much you love your dear Bishop Bob Duncan and have enjoyed his ministry over the years. We are praying for Bishop Bob and Nara too. We pray that God will give you his peace and you will have courage to withstand the storm. Was that a timely prayer! A coincidence? I don’t think so””Just like Peter, the appeal is for courage to withstand the storm.
Peter cries out “Lord, save me!” Only one person calls and only one person saves. First Jesus calls out to Peter “It is I” and then as he is sinking Jesus saves Peter. Our text says verse in 31, “Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. Bible teacher and Episcopal priest Chuck Irish once said, “If you don’t think you are helpless and in need of a Savior perhaps you are still helpless and in need of a Savior. God loves us so much that he was willing to offer his only Son so that we might not only be saved but that we might be transformed, made new, made whole, delivered and set free from a life of sin and death —transferred from the Kingdom of darkness into his marvelous light. That’s the good news, brothers and sisters. The gospel isn’t an affirmation of who we are in our sin but a transformation from it. There’s change involved
I came to know Christ as my Lord and Savior in 1981 through the witness of a priest of this diocese. He had the courage, the heart, to share the gospel with me. And it was good news for me. Before I responded to this free gift of God’s grace, I was, as St Paul reminds us in Ephesians “without God and without hope in the world”. My life was aimless. Like Peter I was unfocussed and sinking fast. Adrift, without direction, I lived from one day to next without a thought of tomorrow. I was self-centered and I was self-directed, lost in my sin and separated from God. Just like with Peter on the water, Jesus reached out his hand and caught me. He saved me, rescued me from my sin. The Bible says, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us ”“the godly for the ungodly”. He didn’t wait till I cleaned up my act. He didn’t demand I work harder, or do better. He snatched me up as is — “Just as I am, without one plea!”. But he didn’t leave me there. He transformed me. He gave me new direction in my life, joy, peace and contentment. He gave me deeper love for my wife and children. He gave me a depth of commitment to my family which had been so very weak. After I surrendered my life to Christ, I strived to be Christ- centered rather than me-centered. And my life has never been the same since. Thanks be to God.
Third and last sentence, Jesus said “Don’t be afraid”. This third and last sentence reminds me of the first words uttered to the faithful by John Paul II upon becoming Pope. “Do not be afraid to open your heart to Jesus… I’m begging you, please do not be afraid.” Brothers and sisters, we have nothing to fear. God is with us in this. He really is.
In this great debate we have been having these past years I have heard many analogies to past wars and inspiring war leaders, men like Thomas Paine, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill and even Neville Chamberlain and Marshall Petain. Even the title of this convention “A house divided against itself cannot stand” from Matthew 12:25 was quoted most famously by Lincoln.
In the midst of the Civil War a question was asked of President Lincoln. The inquirer said: “Mr. President, we trust during this time of trial in which the nation is engaged, God is on our side, and will give us victory.” Lincoln replied: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God’s side. For God is always right!” I think Mr. Lincoln was right on target.
If we act out of godly motives, with godly love toward each other then both sides will be on God’s side and no matter which side carries the vote, both sides will win in the end. And if that be the case we have nothing to fear. Moses spoke these words to the people of Israel as they prepared to engage the Amorites, “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified [because of them], for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.” So it is with us. God has not given us a spirit of fear. He will see every re-organizer and every re-aligner through this challenging time, every one who puts their full faith and trust in him. Can we trust him in this vote. Can we trust that His will for all of us will prevail in this convention today? Can we bless each other as we separate? In the last several years our Bishop’s final blessing has often begun with these words of St. Paul from I Corinthians 16:12-14. Be watchful; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Let all that you do be done in love. Let it be so today and always.
For His sake I pray, Amen.

Clergy and lay members of the theologically conservative Pittsburgh diocese voted overwhelmingly Saturday to break from the liberal Episcopal Church, with which it differs on issues ranging from homosexuality to biblical teachings on salvation.

Assistant Bishop Henry Scriven said the vote means the Pittsburgh diocese is now more firmly aligned with the majority of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, which is more conservative than the communion’s 2.2 million-member U.S. church.

“I am delighted,” Scriven said, “that what we have done today is bringing the Diocese of Pittsburgh back into the mainstream of worldwide Anglicanism.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

No doubt he can’t help it: the Rev. Mark Harris provides us with a textbook example of a liberal’s utter lack of logic in commenting for his readers on what has in fact happened today with the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

If it is the majority [that votes to change the Constitution], they will claim that “The Diocese of Pittsburgh” has left. That will be completely inaccurate. What will be true is that a majority of the delegates representing their parishes will have voted to leave. Not all the members of a parish voting to leave will do so, just as not all members of a parish voting not to leave will stay. Instead, PEOPLE will leave or stay.

(Bold added for emphasis.) It is woolly thinking such as this that has landed The Episcopal Church in all its current difficulties. The Rev. Harris sits on TEC’s Executive Council—just think how that body reacted to the proposed changes by various dioceses to their Constitutions: it passed a resolution proclaiming the changes to be null and void. Groupthink of the kind engaged in by Mark Harris and his liberal colleagues who currently hold the reins of The Episcopal Church has produced the current atmosphere of unChristian lawsuits, depositions and dunderheaded proposals for more legislation “to fix the problem.” (Hint to the liberals [which they will never get, but I’ll make it anyway]: If you are the problem to begin with, what do you think passing yet more loopy laws and crazy canons will accomplish? That’s right: more problems.)

Read it all.

(Press Release) Deputies to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s 143rd Annual diocesan convention voted by strong margins on October 4 to join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Vote totals on the key constitutional provision that opened the way for the change were as follows. A total of 191 laity voted. 119 voted in favor. 69 voted against, 3 abstained. A total of 160 clergy voted. 121 voted in favor. 33 voted no. 3 abstained. 2 invalid ballots were cast.

“We deeply value our shared heritage and years of friendship with those still within that denomination, but this diocese could not in good conscience continue down the road away from mainstream Christianity that the leadership of The Episcopal Church is so determined to follow,” said the Rev. Peter Frank, director of communications for the diocese.

The passage of the vote by the diocesan convention, the diocese’s highest governing authority, means that the entire Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, including all of its congregations and clergy, is now part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The diocese expects a small group of 210 clergy and a minority of its 70 parishes to withdraw from the diocese and reorganize under the authority of The Episcopal Church. The diocese is committed to making such decisions of conscience as easy as possible for all those involved.

The Province of The Southern Cone decided in 2007 to offer temporary oversight and pastoral care to mainstream Anglicans disengaging from The Episcopal Church. They hope there will be a new Anglican province in North America for those Anglicans who hold to historic faith and order. In the meantime, scores of individual congregations and four dioceses either have, or are considering, accepting the generous offer of The Southern Cone. The dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy will both make their final decision in November.

“We are deeply thankful to the Province of the Southern Cone for offering us a clear way to stay within The Anglican Communion as the necessary work of building a new province goes forward. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Christians of many denominations and traditions both here in Pittsburgh and around the world that have prayed for us, encouraged us and stood with us as we have made this decision,” said Frank.

1. Under the Canons and Constitution of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, it is not possible for the Diocese or parishes within the Diocese to leave the Church. People may leave the Church; dioceses and parishes may not. Therefore, parishes, clergy and laity that wish to remain in the Episcopal Church will not recognize the legitimacy of “realignment.”
2. At the close of Convention on October 4, we will no longer recognize those members of the current leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who “realign” as being legitimate. Ecclesiastic authority will shift to those members of the Standing Committee who are known to be remaining in the Episcopal Church.
3. Soon after October 4, the remaining members of the Standing Committee will determine whether any of the other members of the current Standing Committee are remaining in the Episcopal Church. Those who are not will cease to be recognized as members of the Standing Committee. The remaining members of the Standing Committee will appoint two additional individuals to serve as members of the Standing Committee.

Read it carefully and read it all.

When the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh meets in convention October 4, in addition to considering whether to align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, deputies will be asked to create four new parishes.

Seeds of Hope, Bloomfield; Charis247 Community, Coraopolis; Somerset Anglican Fellowship, Somerset; and Grace Anglican Church, Slippery Rock, are all asking for admission to the diocese.

Admitting the four as parishes would add at least 12 votes (two deputies and one clergy person from each congregation) to total of those who will be asked to approve resolutions (see resolutions one, two and three here) to align with the Buenos Aires-based Southern Cone.

“This is the most important organizational decision that Pittsburgh congregations will face for years to come,” Jenni Bartling, the diocese’s congregational developer for church plants, said in July while announcing the anticipated vote. “Because all of our church plants will be directly affected by the decision[s] of Diocesan Convention, we believe it is important that as many as possible are able to vote on this issue, just like any other congregation of the diocese.”

Read it all.

Those on both sides expect the Episcopal Diocese to vote today to secede from the U.S. denomination and join an Anglican province in South America — but with at least 17 of approximately 73 parishes choosing to remain in the Episcopal Church.

In the first of two required votes, last year the laity voted 118-58 and clergy voted 109-24 to secede. While some think a reversal is possible, no one is predicting it.

Opponents were more optimistic earlier, when some church leaders who admired Pittsburgh’s then-Bishop Robert Duncan were nevertheless wary of secession, said Rich Creehan, spokesman for Across the Aisle, a group for those who intend to remain Episcopal. But the Sept. 18 vote of the Episcopal House of Bishops to remove Bishop Duncan changed that.

“They saw that action by the House of Bishops as an insult and said they didn’t want to be part of people who acted like that,” Mr. Creehan said.

Read it all.

Read it all.

Update: The resolutions under consideration are here.

So, when the prospect of “leaving” the Episcopal Church (I’ve always contended that we were staying, they had left, but those are just different words now) presented itself before last year’s convention, I began analyzing every possible reason not to: We don’t need another Protestant split, we need to stay and fight, what witness will be left if we go, no one is preventing us from preaching the gospel, and on and on. But gradually, as each argument failed, I found myself staring at the one big elephant left in the room: What will ministry life be like outside of the comfort, security, and status I had known all my life in the Episcopal Church? A question I had talked a good game about but never really faced seriously, and it was daunting.

Of course, some of that concern is natural; we all want a job so we can feed our families, and most people prefer provision, beauty, and comfort over poverty and pain, but, for me, they had become somewhat of an idol, a dependency that had exerted more influence on my thinking than I realized.

The testimony in all this is that, over time, through no contribution on my part, except resistance, that dependency and fear has been gently lifted and in its place a small gift of faith that has allowed me the freedom to face and even embrace the prospect of ministry outside of the Episcopal Church.

Read it carefully and read it all. And please join me in praying for all who gather in Convention in Pittsburgh this weekend.

From here:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Yesterday was a difficult day in the House of Bishops and the Episcopal Church. I want you to hear directly from me about the House of Bishops’ vote to depose the Bishop of Pittsburgh for abandoning the communion of this Church. The House of Bishops reached this decision after weighing considerable evidence. We also prayed and listened intentionally to each other; our decision was careful and informed.

The Bishop of Pittsburgh has led the efforts to separate the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church by advocating for changes in the accession clause in that diocese’s constitution and canons. He also supports a canonical change which would move the diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone. His actions supporting these changes were never in dispute. Critically, he presided at the Diocesan Convention in 2007 at which the change in the constitution of diocese was approved in the first reading. His failure to rule the resolution out of order and his clear advocacy for its full passage at the upcoming convention in October by a second vote are demonstrative. The judgment of the House of Bishops was that by these actions Bishop Duncan made an open renunciation of the discipline of this church, thereby abandoning the communion of this Church.
There is an effort underway to suggest that the House of Bishops did not follow the canons of our Church in these proceedings. However these are the same procedures followed in three other depositions in the last few years, none of which were protested under the rules of the House of Bishops. When these procedures were challenged, the House of Bishops sustained the ruling of the president. It has also been suggested that the abandonment of communion proceedings do not permit the bishop in question the benefit of due process. Bishop Duncan could have ended these proceedings at any time by re-committing to the order and discipline of this Church and pledging to halt the contemplated actions of the convention by ruling the anticipated vote out of order when it was presented to the convention. Furthermore, he could have come before the house and offered a vigorous defense. His failure to do either places the outcome completely on his shoulders.

Finally, I believe that yesterday’s action is essential to maintain the order and discipline of our Church and the collegiality of the House of Bishops. It permits the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to move forward. Some individuals may decide not to do so, but your House of Bishops has empowered those committed to the mission of the Episcopal Church to carry forward that ministry in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. We acted as responsible pastors and stewards of the Church. I fully support the actions of our House of Bishops and voted for this action.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to forgive, yet we must also hold each other accountable. We must also pray for peace for all involved in these difficult events. I ask your prayers for Bishop Duncan and his family. Pray also for the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Faithfully,

(The Rt. Rev.) James R. Mathes is Bishop of San Diego

“No one goes to church to fight,” said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for the diocese, whose conservative leader, Bishop Robert W. Duncan, was removed by the national church on Sept. 18 for pushing for secession. “It’s going to be difficult. And, at the same time, there’s hope in this. It’s time to move on.”

The drive to divorce the Episcopal Church arose after the election of V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. But the secessionists say the issue is not simply about homosexuality. “Bishop Robinson is a symptom, not the cause of our disagreement with the Episcopal Church,” Mr. Frank said.

The dispute includes complaints that the national church allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God, or that the only way to God is through Jesus ”” tenets of faith that conservatives find indisputable.

But an opponent of secession, the Rev. Jay Geisler of St. Stephens Church in McKeesport, Pa., pointed out that those tenets are in the Book of Common Prayer, which guides the church. Mr. Geisler added, “I just can’t see Jesus Christ forcing us to go one way or the other and split apart.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

The fact, timing and manner of the action taken by the American House of Bishops toward Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh has filled us with dismay. He is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and is guilty only of guarding his people from false teaching and corrupt behaviour as he promised to do. Once more the upholders of the orthodox faith are made to suffer at the hands of those who have introduced new teachings.

However, the action has also had the effect of clarifying matters even further. It is now impossible to believe that the exhortations of the Lambeth Conference and the Windsor Continuation Group will be heeded. No Pastoral Forum has been established. We remain convinced that the faithful Anglicans of North America need to have their own Province recognised by the Communion as a whole. We are determined to stand with Bishop Duncan and those who, like him, have protested in the name of God against the unscriptural innovations which have caused such divisions amongst us.

In the absence of other substantive provision from the historic structures of the Communion, the Primates’ Council gives its full support to Archbishop Greg Venables in receiving Bishop Duncan as a Bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone.

Once again within a few months the landscape of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has changed””as if Gafcon and Lambeth were not enough. What does this deposition mean? Frankly, it is still unfolding, but I offer the following reflections:

”¢ The House of Bishops whether intentionally or not has enhanced the power of the Presiding Bishop. With consequences far beyond the deposition of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, this vote by interpretation and application of Title IV.9, has established invasive reach for the PB. It is now possible for a sitting bishop of TEC to be deposed without prior inhibition or trial, rendering superfluous the role of the three Senior Bishops of the House. Beyond this is the quizzical ruling that it takes more votes from the House to receive the resignation of a retiring bishop then to depose a sitting one! Then there is the curious fact that it takes a two-thirds vote of the house to overturn a ruling of the chair, thus when combined with rendering moot the role of the senior bishops and the plain reference to a needed “majority of the whole house entitled to vote” in Title IV.9””there is enhanced power to the PB regardless of who may hold the chair, now or in the future. A development mercurial indeed, when one considers the PB and House of Bishops have repeatedly declined the authority to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church when queried for commitments by the Communion’s Instruments of Unity; deferring instead to the authority of General Convention.

”¢ I fear that however reasoned or temperately the members of the House of Bishops or the Presiding Bishop’s Office explains this deposition it will further trouble the waters of discord. There are several reasons for this: While Title IV.9 mentions a bishop abandoning the communion by open renunciation of the Discipline of this church, (which is ostensibly the clearest rationale for why the presentment was brought against Bishop Duncan), it is also clear from the same canon that prior to mentioning renunciation of the Discipline of the Church there is the reference to the Doctrine of the Church. Many from within TEC itself, as well as those in the various provinces of the Anglican Communion, are not unaware that there have been more then a few bishops of this Church who have in public settings and in published writings, renounced or at least denied the Doctrine of TEC. Others have allowed rites of worship, which if not having actually crossed the authorized boundaries in their approval of pastoral liturgies for same-sex blessings, have all but done so””doing pirouettes on a knife’s edge. Doesn’t the House of Bishops look as if it is being selective in holding its theological “conservative” bishops and dioceses accountable in matters of the Church’s discipline (i.e. the Constitution & Canons), while having no will to hold “liberal” bishops, retired and active, accountable on matters of doctrine and worship? And even in this matter of the Church’s discipline we may look selective: For instance what does the Presiding Bishop and the HOB’s intend to do with those bishops who contrary to the canons allow or even invite open communion of the unbaptized?

Ӣ As you may already know Bishop Duncan has been received as a bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone. Rather then helping to mend the fabric of the Communion torn by TEC in 2003 by actions contrary to Lambeth 1.10, this recent action of the House of Bishops further tears the fabric of the communion. Even as I write this account voices of support for Bishop Duncan are being raised in various provinces of the Anglican Communion.

”¢ I fear that while repeatedly asking other Provinces of the Communion to understand the uniqueness of our Church’s polity, and requesting a gracious patience towards the complexities of our local or provincial needs, we now appear to have limited capacity in offering this to one another within The Episcopal Church.

Ӣ There will be louder, more urgent, and convincing calls (indeed they have already been heard in several quarters) for another Anglican Province in North America.

All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy””but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted….

Read it carefully and read it alll.

I have not had a chance to link to this yet.

Read it all.

Each [side] says it’s the only true Diocese of San Joaquin.

As in a bitter divorce, each claims to be noble but wronged. One has the house, the other, at least for now, rents an apartment with help from Mom. Though children struggle with loss, each spouse is glad to be free.

“We have that kind of fervor that you would have found in the early church,” said Nancy Key, spokesman for the reorganized Episcopal diocese

The other side is no less exuberant.

“We’ve been able to get about the gospel and doing our work as a church without being distracted by the kinds of arguments that folks seem to want to get into in the Episcopal Church. We’re not about trying to change the church. We are trying to be the church as best we can and as imperfect as it is,” said Rev. Carlos Raines, who has remained rector of St. James Cathedral.

When the diocese voted in september 42 of 48 parishes chose to leave the Episcopal Church, leaving six buildings in Episcopal hands and fragments of other congregations in community centers or rented churches.

Although much about San Joaquin’s experience is unique, its story is instructive about the problems that may lie ahead for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, which will vote Saturday on whether to join San Joaquin in seceding.

Read it all.

First, I am dismayed that Bishop Duncan has taken several actions that he has….

But the bulk of my sadness and anger is reserved for the Presiding Bishop and those who have attempted to buttress her course of action. No, I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on TV. But I do read and write English with a modicum of fluency. I know what lots of words mean. I can diagram sentences. And I can spot ambiguity from a mile away. There is nothing ambiguous about Canon IV.9. That the HOB’s lawyer-bishops cast aside common sense in order to “find” ambiguity that they could then resolve in favor of the Presiding Bishop’s desires is to their shame. So ”¦ shame on them. As a result of their work, the best hermeneutical tool for understanding the polity and discipline of the Episcopal Church these days is, alas, Alice in Wonderland, where words mean only what those in power say they mean.

I am also sad and angry””well, mystified might be a more accurate term””at the tunnel vision of the HOB majority. It is actually doing harm to their own cause. Before they took on the Duncan matter, our bishops took some time to bask in the afterglow of the Lambeth Conference, wherein they made lots of new friends and reached deeper levels of mutual understanding with their episcopal peers from other provinces. So it is incredible to me that they cannot see how their action in deposing Bishop Duncan is likely to be interpreted abroad as a pre-emptive purge of an annoying colleague, convicting a man for what he thinks and plans rather than for what he has done (shades of the film Minority Report), yet another example of TEC’s “progressive” juggernaut steamrolling all opposition.

Read it all.

From here:

That this Synod: noting (1) the deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh in The Episcopal Church, by the assembled bishops of that church, on 18 September 2008; (2) the good standing and high reputation Bishop Bob Duncan has as an orthodox Anglican bishop, as represented by statements of support being expressed in recent days by the Archbishops of Sydney, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Cone, West Indies, Kenya, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Singapore, numerous bishops within The Episcopal Church itself, and the Bishops of Winchester, Rochester, Chester, Exeter, Blackburn and Chichester; (3) various developments in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada in recent years which place increasing pressure on faithful orthodox Anglicans to conform to changes in theology, liturgy and ethics rather than to uphold and maintain the 2000 year old teaching of the church; offers its support to Bishop Bob Duncan, to the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and to all bishops and dioceses in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada as they seek to find a way forward which embodies the true spirit of orthodox Anglicanism.

The number of primates and bishops in the Anglican Communion publicly supporting Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh is growing since the House of Bishops voted to depose him from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church on Sept. 17.

Six diocesan bishops from the Church of England -”‘ Blackburn, Chester, Chichester, Exeter, Rochester and Winchester -”‘ said they continue to regard him as a bishop in good standing of the Anglican Communion.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt. Rev. Michael Schott-Joynt, has previously called for an “orderly separation” of liberal and conservative Anglicans following the Lambeth Conference last August.

The statement by the English bishops was preceded by statements of support for Bishop Duncan from the primates of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southeast Asia, the Southern Cone, Uganda and the West Indies.

Read it all.