We are committed to Jesus Christ and also to The Episcopal Church and we rejoice in its rich historic, authentic tradition of worship, outreach, and evangelistic mission while also seeking to be a place where all are welcome to worship the Lord and grow in grace.
However, recent actions in some portions of the church have raised great concerns for us. Specifically the actions of the 76th General Convention in resolutions D025 and C056 which we believe do not serve the Church well, especially in the wider context of our relationship to The Anglican Communion. While we understand that we represent a congregation with varying opinions on issues of sexuality, we also believe these resolutions open the door to innovations, which are not in concert with the majority of the Church and certainly The Communion. We are concerned that the passing of these resolutions will continue to strain our international relationships and we believe that they encourage an ethical stance, which is contrary to scripture. For these reasons we reject them.
We are also concerned with opening remarks made by The Presiding Bishop at the General Convention. We find her statement that the “great western heresy (is that) we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be right with God” extremely troubling. We have read the full text of her speech and while we appreciate her emphasis on exercising our faith in right relationship, we believe her statement about individual salvation to be wrong, and we reject it.
And so what, really? What does this change? I’m certain, just as in the case of society at large with regard to its own pronouncements, that 815 neither knows nor cares what the Vestry of St. Michael’s has to say about Episcopalianism, the Presiding Manager, or anything else. For that matter, even if Mrs. Schori did take note of it, she would (rightly, with a snicker and a nice pat on the head) place it in the context that this parish’s rector puts a lot of effort into puffing up the very institution his vestry purports to criticize.
And feckless criticism it is: I find it ironic that a liturgy for reproductive loss would be trumpeted, coming, as it does, from an institution that promotes abortion. St. Michaels thereby soft pedals the Episcopalian reality that it’s only the mother’s want for her child that determines whether a liturgy is conducted for reproductive loss or for the celebration of an abortion.
Did General Convention actually commit itself to a “common covenant”? To what covenant does the vestry refer?
It would be interesting to see the name of the members of the vestry. In that neighborhood there could possibly be some names that might attract Mrs. Schori’s attention.
It seems that St. Michael’s is one of the remaining TEC parishes in the Dio of Pittsburgh, so perhaps their vestry may want to be in touch w/ their delegates and their acting/interim/provisional bishop.
Pennsylvabia? Eurabia was bad enough but this!
Fat Bill: I don’t know about the vestry, but St. Michael’s rector is Jim Simons, the only member of the pre-schism DioPitt Standing Committee not to join +Duncan, but otherwise a solid reasserter. But he has (inevitably?) been very involved in getting the TEC-loyalist version of DioPitt up and running, even though I would think it must be somewhat lonely to be orthodox in the rump diocese, at least among the clergy.
Maybe David Wilson+, Jeremy Bonner, or someone else local can shed some light on this matter, but I for one think it’s at least a little encouraging. After all, Fr. Jim Simon had an incredible track record as a longtime leader in the AAC before the debacle of 2003.
Perhaps, just perhaps, he’s beginning to come back to his senses.
David Handy+
P.S. It’s worth noting that the vestry decision was UNANIMOUS. And that the rector also agreed to it.
David Handy+
Phil, statements such as these aren’t always meant to have the impact of 95 Theses, nor are they always meant to directly confront church leadership. Sometimes, Vestries need to make statements such as this simply for the benefit of the parish itself. It helps those in the pews to know where parish leadership stands on issues.
I don’t think your overreaction helps.
As a local person (lay), I don’t know what to think of the statement from the vestry. Perhaps they are trying to convince others that they have nut fully digested the TEC Koolaid, but I can’t help thinking that at least the rector’s veins run with the stuff. If you look at his blog, it is full of him singing the praises of TEC, and sniping at the departed ones – quite nastily, I might add. I haven’t been there in a while, but it was quite upsetting. I would be thrilled if he has “come back to his senses”, but I’m not holding my breath.
I have known folks from St. Michael’s, and I was surprised at their decision to stay in TEC. I also know that a good number of people have left and formed an Anglican group.
The rector has posted this to his blog as well:
http://3riversepiscopal.blogspot.com/
Br. Franklin, re: “overreaction,” I refer you to #10 and #11. Although I have to say, you have a point: this parish might have serious questions about where the parish leadership stands, based on the rector’s blog and actions.
One of the tragedies of schism is, and has always been, the parting of friends and then then the sniping at those former friends because they do not see things the way you do. The comments on this thread reflect this. Here is an honest statement by a parish and its rector who for honest reasons to do with their own integrity and understanding of ecclesiology did not part company with the Episcopal Church. Detractors may believe they have acted wrongly or unwisely, but they have acted with sincerity, given their own theological understandings, insight, and sense of discipleship.
The implication of some of these comments is “what has gone wrong with these people?” The implied answer is that they have gone off, they have departed from the truth, they have allied themselves with the forces of evil, etc, etc. I don’t know what is behind everything that has happened at St. Michael’s but as one who is a committed evangelical Anglican and who remains part of the Episcopal Church, I see nothing in their statement that implies compromise — in fact, quite the reverse, for it calls into question some of the less appropriate actions of the General Convention and words of the Presiding Bishop.
Personally, I have tried not to be critical of those who have left TEC, although I am sure there are times when I have failed. I have certainly felt diminished and saddened by their departure. I know many of them felt it necessary to do such a thing for reasons of personal integrity. This is to be respected, even if it is a course I neither desire nor am able out of conscience to follow.
In return, I would ask that those who have parted company try not to slight those who have done otherwise. You may not like what we have done, but faithful convictions have usually shaped our response to this unpleasant set of realities. However, when the chips are down we truly do have more in common than what separates us, even if we are approaching the challenges of the here and now in different ways. This is a time for coming together in conversation and not accusation, for reaching out in friendship and not pointing the finger.
Separations between churches fester. A few years ago when working alongside the Russian Orthodox Church I discovered just how open the wounds are of the Great Schism that occurred nearly a millennium ago. Church history is replete with other examples — the story of the Reformation, the story of the Restoration in England, the antagonisms between Anglicans and Methodists, the Fundamentalist Controversies of the 20th Century. The list goes on. Division is painful, and much harder than almost anything to mend because solid barriers of demarcation are built so incredibly quickly as folks assert their own distinctives.
We are in a position where we can alienate one another further, or we can seek common ground recognizing different charisms for different purposes. Those who remain part of TEC have the daunting responsibility of being a remnant, witnessing to God’s truth in an environment where we believe many to have gone astray while the mechanisms of the denomination tend to rebuff us. Those Anglicans who have left TEC have the daunting responsibility to put together structures that will enable growth and stand the test of time, something that took previous divisions in American churches 2-3 generations to achieve. Meanwhile, all of us have the responsibility to see how we might mend what is broken.
Shouting, criticism, finger-pointing, allegation, etc, are surely not going to honor Christ. What is ahead will be difficult enough and will product its own fair share of agony. There are already ambiguities and the confusion of gray areas. Grace, revelation, and reason suggest we must rise to the challenge of working toward unity, while refraining from moving the splinter from the eyes of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
#13 Well said. One of the things which dismays those of us abroad who are concerned for the position of conservatives in North America is the hopeless squabbling, back-biting and undermining which goes on between those who hold the Gospel in common. It assists only those who oppose all of them and their witness.
I hope your call is taken up by those of good will and that people work and engage more constructively together.
Richard, I agree with much of what you have written. While I haven’t been able to go where ACNA has gone, I’ve understood — and articulated publicly that understanding frequently — about the need for some to leave TEC — and their need for a coherent Anglican body to be a part of. I do not begrudge them their choices and their efforts, though I am not a part of them and have certainly pointed out flaws in The Plan!
I’m definitely a “Stayer.”
But the antagonism towards this particular parish statement is, I suspect, less to do with their “Staying” and more to do with its rector.
Thus . . . when you say “I see nothing in their statement that implies compromise—in fact, quite the reverse, for it calls into question some of the less appropriate actions of the General Convention and words of the Presiding Bishop” . . . people are interpreting that statement in light of the rector of the parish who has engaged in some incredibly childish, spiteful rhetoric on his blog, not to mention enjoining laypeople not to “google” or do research on their interim bishop — an honestly incredible thing to come out of the mouth or pen of someone staying in TEC!
I have a feeling that if this statement had come from Bruce Robison — a person who has also stayed in Pittsburgh and has been irenic and seems to have not only charitable feelings but engages in charitable speech and action — the hostility would have disappeared.
[i]I’m not saying that any of the above is an excuse or a good thing![/i]
I’m just pointing out where people are coming from, I think, in their critiques.
As for my analysis, I’m always glad when a parish tells the truth about TEC’s national leadership and that leadership’s beliefs. Putting ones parish on record is a great flagplanting thing to do.
There is this statement “rejecting” the actions of GenCon 2009. Then there is the fact that this rector, as President of the Standing Committee, played the key role in securing the Assisting Bishop who voted exactly in favor of these actions. And is right now active in bringing in as Provisional Bishop another avid supporter of the actions he “rejects”. Actions speak louder than words…