A vastly downsized Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh launched its reorganization Saturday, calling a senior bishop from North Carolina to serve as its interim leader.
The Right Rev. Robert Hodges Johnson, a retired bishop who previously served as interim bishop to a Virginia diocese in upheaval, will serve as assisting bishop to the Diocese of Pittsburgh through July 2009, as it reorganizes, the Rev. James B. Simons announced yesterday. Simons, president of the Standing Committee of the Pittsburgh diocese, made the announcement during his state of diocese speech at a special convention yesterday at which representatives from 28 parishes met to reorganize, ordain a new priest and elect new leadership.
The article is encouraging in terms of what Simons is saying. He says that he wants to have a major change of direction: a perception that TEC loyalists are partly at fault for the state of affairs, no more attacks and throwing stones at departing traditionalists, instead an end to judgment and instead a focus on extending genuine love and openness to them. He also emphasizes that (in keeping with that spirit) he has no plan to pursue lawsuits against the departed parishes. WOW. I love it.
That’s what he says, and I hope he means it and (if he does) I hope his new bishop agrees and that they can jointly keep that new vision the directing force behind everything they do with Bishop Duncan and his diocese.
On the other hand, if he does mean it, it is troubling to also read that the reformed diocese has allocated ONE THIRD of next year’s budget for lawsuits. When one reads that, “wow” is also about the only thing one can say.
Here’s a question which I would be grateful for someone more knowledgeable to comment on. Just suppose for a second that (1) the steering committee (led by Simmons) and the new bishop prayed together and really came to believe that lawsuits against Duncan and the departed diocese were wrong. Then suppose (2) that they got huge amounts of pressure from 815 to initiate lawsuits or otherwise participate in them.
How easy would it be for them to resist that pressure? Or equivalently, what kinds of pressure does 815 put on dioceses and bishops when it wants them to get in line with its Litigation Plan?
I ask this because it simply seems very clear that something happened to Bishop Lee of Virgina once KJS took the throne. As long as Frank Grisworld was officially in office (which was still the case even a few months after GC 2006, right?) Bishop Lee was pursuing policies consistent with Griswold’s approach for departing parishes: low-key, negotiated amicable settlements. And this seemed also consistent with Lee’s personal style in 2001-2006. Then suddenly, Lee did a mammoth about face ALMOST ALL THOUGH he had gotten stern orders from above — and this abrupt change was timed almost exactly around the time KJS took power.
But what kind of pressure could he have been faced with? Is ultimately this Lee’s doing and he must accept responsibility? Or was there a sense in which he was being pressured in a way he couldn’t have effectively resisted?
Can anyone knowledgeable comment?
Many thanks….
My apologies. Spelling mistake in the above post. When I said “ALMOST ALL THOUGH”, I meant to write “ALMOST AS THOUGH”.
Jon, my take on this address is far different than yours. His apology for creating a culture of “fear and control” was to the liberal minority in the old diocese. He was apologizing for participating in the marginalization of GLBT influence by Bishop Duncan and he is now advocating for their inclusion in the reorganized diocese. This was his point in the call for more “diversity”. This is why Integrity is now welcome at the convention. This is why Dr. Simons hand-picked a gay-agenda affirming Assisting Bishop. As for casting stones, Dr. Simons is still hurling them with great vigor against Bishop Duncan and the “lemmings” on his blog. And as for the upcoming legal battles… I’m sure Dr. Simons will deplore their necessity…
How many of the remaining Episcopalians intend on trying to reform the church from within, to continue as a voice of critique against the liberal agenda of the church? Are they a majority or a minority? According to an email put out by the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern PA, all of “the other Pennsylvania bishops” “were invited to be present as Pittsburgh embarks on reorganizing their diocese.” How will these reformers follow the “inside strategy” by hobnobbing with those who have a track record of following the National Church agenda on the issues that divide us? I would think that the invitations would have gone out to Bishops with a track record of prophetic critique, such as South Carolina (and perhaps they were–does someone know?)
The perception among the laity (at least) in the other PA dioceses is that those in Pittsburgh who chose to remain in TEC are not involved in any inside reform movement–the troublemakers are gone and we can go back to practicing ostrich-head orthodoxy. I’m afraid that the article’s quote from Betsy Hetzler says it all: “It’s a wonderful gut feeling of hope. The wonderful thing about the Episcopal church is there’s room for conservatives, liberals, traditionalists. There’s room for all.” In other words, We want things to go back to the way they were. Everyone’s welcome, as long as they know their place.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
Many thanks to you both (#4 and #5). Very illuminating.
What do you guys think about my second post (#2)? Just suppose this reconstituted TEC diocese DID want to refuse to file any lawsuits against the departed orthodox, would they be able to? Would 815 pressure them? Could they effectively resist such pressure? Would TEC at a national level file the lawsuits if the diocese refused?
Any thoughts about what might have happened in Nov 2006 to cause Bishop Lee of Virginia to do such a major 180-degree turn? If it was pressure from 815, HOW was he pressured and could he have resisted?
Again, many thanks…..
Jon,
I think this depends on how many of those Left Behind are pursuing the “inside strategy.” I watched the Convention live on AnglicanTV.org and got the impression that several clergy voting against separation still wanted to pursue orthodox critique of the national church’s agenda (but perhaps they were the only one’s who managed to get to a mike to voice their objection). If there is still a strong orthodox presence in the new TEC diocese in Pittsburgh, they’re starting off rather shakily with their choice of bedfellows helping them to make the beds they will lie in. South Carolina (for instance) began its new episcopal ministry with alternative primatial oversight. If there is an “inside strategy” in the new TEC diocese, it will need to make these kinds of bold moves. Perhaps a negative reaction against any future lawsuits against the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (now part of ACNA) would be an example.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org ]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
Institutionalists Harold Lewis was elected to be a Genl Conv Deputy and George Werner was elected to the Standing Cmte so we shall see how much the “conservatives” in the new diocese are willing to pursue the so-called inside strategy. Methinks Yertle the Turtle and lemmings pledges are still operative.
In answer to Jon’s question about law-suits, there are two things I can add that might help:
i) At a meeting of earlier this year at which the PB’s chancellor was present, along with both ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ members of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the subject of suing the departing diocese (as opposed to departing parishes) came up, and the chancellor said he hoped we would sue to recover the diocesan assets, but that if we didn’t, PECUSA would.
ii) The money contributed by PECUSA towards the 2009 budget is given with only one string attached: it cannot be used for legal expenses.
So in terms of pressure to sue, neither stick nor carrot.
Jon [#2]: You ask how difficult it would be for the replacement diocese to resist ECUSA pressure to sue the orthodox diocese led by Bp. Duncan. Here are some initial thoughts.
Consider the options ECUSA has if you refuse:
[i]#1. Sue you as well as Bp. Duncan. [/i]
That would divide the house against itself before the house even got built. Disastrous for the new diocese’s recruitment, morale, and budget. A fine way of reuniting theological conservatives with Bp. Duncan.
[i]#2. Oust you and find more pliable collaborators.[/i]
KJS and her Beers would come up with reasons and, if required, new canonical reinterpretations. Remember how she simply ignored the San Joaquin standing committee?
[i]#3. Sue Duncan by itself.[/i]
That would leave you off the hook except as a witness. But ECUSA’s legal team might be reluctant to take the risk of suing Bp. Duncan without a Quisling co-plaintiff. That would militate in favor of ousting you if KJS and her Beers thought they could get away with it.
[i] The money contributed by PECUSA towards the 2009 budget is given with only one string attached: it cannot be used for legal expenses. So in terms of pressure to sue, neither stick nor carrot [/i]
Philip [#9]: Isn’t the “don’t sue with our money” stipulation just window-dressing? ECUSA is giving large sums that it would not otherwise give. The replacement diocese is devoting an extraordinary proportion of its budget to litigation. Money is fungible.
For confirmation of my take on Dr. Simons’ address check out Lionel Deimel’s blog. He also understood the address as a sort of blanket apology to the liberal minority in the old diocese and was “gratified” to see that culture “repudiated”. He was also pleased to note that the call for “diversity” resulted in displays from Integrity. So it is clear that the liberals understood what Dr. Simons was saying and it mirrors what I understood as well. The reorganized diocese is well on the path toward accepting the GLBT agenda as fully normal in the life of the church. It appears that the 12 “orthodox” rectors have silently consented to the introduction of this agenda in the new diocese, or are powerless to oppose it. And indeed, the liberal wing of the reorganized diocese captured many crucial positions in the many elections held Saturday. While not completely shut out, the “orthodox” stayers are clearly losing strength and frankly I am beginning to doubt the accuracy of calling some of these clergy “orthodox”…