For several months, orthodox clergy and lay leaders in the Diocese of Pittsburgh have been meeting in various formats to take counsel together, and to place matters of our Church before God in prayer. We find ourselves in a season where fundamental differences of faith and practice have torn our Church and our Communion, perhaps beyond mending. Decisions of great consequence are now upon us.
As we finish this season of discernment, God has made us aware that ”˜how we now walk’ is linked to ”˜where we shall walk.’ Indeed, we believe that God is reshaping and repositioning us for a new season of ministry ahead. Discernment of our future is still unfolding, and perhaps there is a fork in the road ahead that may divide our fellowship. How we act in the next months is important to our ability to navigate even more difficult moments further down the road.
In this light, we affirm the following principles to guide our actions….
Many pastoral names there…. Does anyone have an off-the-cuff number from the diocese that did NOT sign?
It sure looks encouraging. How many saints have had to wrestle between following God or following man? The numbers are growing.
I don’t know the total number of active clergy who didn’t sign, but I can say that there are nine active rectors whose signatures are not there. What was strange was seeing the names of pastors from a local non-denominational church on the statement…
Anon
All the clergy are Episcopal priests/deacons either canoncally resident in the Diocese of Pittsburgh or canonically resident elsewhere and licensed to minister within the Diocese. Also note the clergy are identified in the statement as orthodox. The nine rectors you mention must be progressives.
David Wilson+
Diocese of Pittsburgh
“…the names of pastors from a local non-denominational church ”
I’ve said for several years that there are congregations out there that are far more Anglican than TEC congregations that I am familiar with. Why shouldn’t they be invited? I was in a conservative Methodist splinter-group as I was growing up and we actually studied the 39 Articles and gave them credance for guidance. Why shouldn’t I be invited?
The next few years should be very interesting.
DonGander,
No “man” is telling me to pray for our painful separation, nor is my God sanctioning the dispare and disconnect that it engenders. Still, there is neither anything surprising nor momentous in this statement. It’s all becoming, sadly, quite predicatble and unflinchingly status quo for all parties involved.
I live not far from the church in question and had no idea that its pastoral staff were licensed Episcopal priests. It is very large church (I’m sure its ASA is over 1000) and seems soundly conservative. I’m not saying their signatures weren’t appropriate, just was suprised to see them.
Anon
You’ll be interested to know that Christ Church @ Grove Farm has five ordained pastors on the staff but only the four Episcopal priests preside at Holy Communion and their regular services are a modified form of MP three Sundays a month and HC (from the 1928 BCP) one Sunday a month. Clergy all wear clerical collars and cassock and surplice or alb and stole at Sunday worship
DDW+
Glad to see many of my favorite clergy from my old stomping grounds – including that retired guy who sired me, my old rector & my old youth conference leader, as well as all the Butler County clergy. May God continue to bless their work & ministries.
Of note, the Rev. Phillip Wainwright signed the document but also wrote an essay [url=http://parishtoolbox.org./media/Biblical_reasons_for_staying.pdf]”Biblical Reasons for Staying”[/url] which Stephen Noll discusses [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5583/]here[/url]. Not unexpectedly, Harold Lewis, thorn in the Duncan the lion’s paw did not sign it.
Fr. Shawn:
Did God sponsor the dispare and disconnect that Stephen the martyr’s words engendered?
I often speak in too obtuse a fashion. Allow me a clarification; as of today, one part of TEC hears the message of one’s hormones on the same level as that of Holy Scripture, one part does not. It is my observation that it is that part that denys one’s hormones, when those hormones conflict with Holy Writ, which is following God rather than man.
This is an astounding list. And TEC continues to say that those who are leaving are only a tiny part of TEC. I don’t know, but this list seems to be a mighty big slice from the whole pie. LM
#11, It’s important of course to read this carefully. A good number of the signers have indicated an intention not to be among “those who are leaving.” In terms of those of us of the diocese who are not included among the signatures, I wouldn’t make much of that either. As I understand the statement, I would probably have signed it, but was never asked . . . .
I’m not trolling here; this is an honest question: There are some (e.g. the signatories mentioned in the post) who are agitating for a split, to align with other “orthodox” in the GS. What are your reactions to the statement from the Anglican bishop of Uyo, Nigeria, Bsp Orama, who is quoted (in a UPI article yesterday) as saying, “Homosexuals are insane, satanic, and not fit to live”? *Not fit to live.* No matter what you think of the EC, a statement like this is indefensible in its dehumanization. My reaction is that, no matter what you think of the EC, never while God gives me breath will I align myself with that.
#12 What is your definition of a good number — 10% or maybe 35% or perhaps 50%. Since I compiled the list, I would say only 10% of the clergy listed could safely be called “stayers”
David — we could take this off-line, but my only point was that it would be inaccurate to describe the signatories as being “people who are going to leave,” especially since a number (whether a “good number” or not is of course a matter of interpretation) have said they are not going to leave, and since the statement itself says that “some of us will leave and some won’t.” That’s all. I just encourage folks to read the statement for what it says, not for what they assume it says. Of course, those of us who aren’t invited to your meetings don’t know what the conversational history is behind the text, so that’s a limitation I would acknowledge.
#15
What do you mean by “those of us who were not invited to your meetings”? Did the group of signers meet without the whole diocese being invited? What was their criteria for invitation? Maybe DDW+ can tell us.
RE: “What was their criteria for invitation?”
I would assume the criteria would be those who are orthodox, but then I’m not in that diocese. Maybe the nine progressive rectors could get together and make their own statement and all sign it, I dunno.
Sarah: so you think that those in the Pittsburgh Diocese that were not invited to attend were deemed by some group not to be orthodox?
DDW+ can you comment on the criteria?
#16,17,18
The criteria for clergy to receive an invitation to the meeting was an affirmative vote for APO at the diocesan convention in 2006 or a willingness to sign off on the AAC document “A Place to Stand” . Thanks to 20 progressives in the diocese all recent votes at diocesan conventions have been by roll-call vote so there is a record of who voted yea or nayon APO. Lay people were invited by their rector or vicar and were attested by them.
Re: “. . . or a willingness to sign off on the AAC document “A Place to Stand†. . . ”
Yep.