A proposal for the Pittsburgh diocese’s convention, which takes place today and Saturday, had called for formation of a task force to study the possibility of a reunion between the two dioceses. They had once been one.
But that resolution will be replaced, according to a statement from the Pittsburgh diocese. The new resolution will call for “discussions with a number of neighboring dioceses to explore collaborative partnerships to enhance the ministries of our dioceses and to improve the efficiency of diocesan operations,” the statement said.
Pittsburgh is surrounded on two sides by West Virginia, which has been particularly hard hit statistically in TEC.
As a practical matter, the only way some areas of North America are going to be able to be served by Anglican episcopacy and diocesan structures (whether TEC, Anglican Church of Canada, or newer associations) is to organize regionally, leaving aside regard for existing secular state boundaries and the unaffordable multiplicity of current dioceses, ordinaries, and their support staffs.
Or, Henry, they can simply accept that the Bishop and his staff must be bi-vocational. Upper Peninsula may end up in such a state.
Br’er Rabbit: Your idea is truly wonderful, but would not the only clergy willing to be bi-vocational bishops be bi-vocational priests? And are there enough people who have even been allowed to be ordained as bi-vocational clergy?
Your point is cogent, Henry. Perhaps there few Anglican clergy–excepting vocational deacons, of course–who are even willing to ‘get a job’. But there remain many openings in the workplace for chaplains at prisons, hospitals, and retirement homes.
Father Karry Crites at ELM community church in North Reno (lately of DioNevada, but now ACNA) is a hospital chaplain. My own bishop is a VA chaplain–but whoever heard of the CEEC anyway?
I think I get it. After the diocese left, there aren’t enough Episcopalians in Pittsburgh any more to have their own diocese.
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) killed the resolution. They viewed it as 1) a sign of weakness to avoided 2) unnecessary because of the prospect of recovering the endowment money that could float the diocese for a good number of years 3) it would result in a bishop not of their choosing and 4) it was proposed by those perceived to be conservative and thus “tainted”. The “conservatives” with whom it originated quickly caved and withdrew the resolution.
Speaking of caving, at convention today Bishop Price was unanimously approved as Provisional Bishop. This means not a single “conservative” opposed the selection of a raving revisionist supporter of the LGBT agenda who just voted in favor of D025 and C056. There are simply no traditional “orthodox” Episcopalians left in TEC Pittsburgh who have not been cowed into silence by the new culture in which disagreement with the PEP agenda is considered “Duncanite” and to be avoided at all costs. Better just go along to get along…
Nevin, that is really sad.
I suspect there was no objection because Bishop Price’s election is as provisional bishop. Who is chosen in two or three years from now is key and for that there needs to be time for some of the dust to settle. Upper South Carolina appears to have beaten the odds in terms of its nominations and Pittsburgh may ultimately do the same. There is ample license for people to be skeptical, but stranger things have happened.
I would note that there were two “conservative” resolutions on the docket and they also passed without dissent. One saluted those who worked for the Celebrate 250 initiative – seen by liberals here as inextricably linked with ++Bob Duncan and consequently anathema – and the second was the covenant resolution (which I will post in due course). I’m sure most readers here will consider the recommendation so bland as to be worthless (it’s a solicitation of parochial responses to Ridley Cambridge, which I know most have given up on), but you work with what you’ve got.
Objections will continue to be made (you didn’t seem to object to my last effort, Nevin), but where and how they are expressed will vary. I’m still not clear in my own mind, based on some people to whom I talked today, that there is a consensus on a slash and burn policy. I will wait and see.
And, regardless, Trinity Cathedral will continue with its service to one Master and membership in two bodies (unless and until one of those bodies chooses to cast us off).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]