The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s new bishop, Kenneth L. Price, is seeking face-to-face meetings with area congregations that left the Episcopal Church over issues ranging from abortion to the consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop.
The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s new bishop, Kenneth L. Price, is seeking face-to-face meetings with area congregations that left the Episcopal Church over issues ranging from abortion to the consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop.
One seeking reconciliation with this group of churches may wish first to speak with their bishop. If the article is correct in that +Duncan was notified by a copy of the letters sent, +Price has basically said to +Duncan that he does not recognize +Duncan’s office. That will not play well in Pittsburgh…
This strikes me as pure theater.
“reconciliation”, hmmmmmmm, where have I heard that word just recently…Oh, I know, a sneaky way to get Health Care done outside the normal..
Some of the same? Ahhhhhhh, couldn’t be.. Just a really nice guy.
Grandmother in SC
When someone called a bishop writes another bishop’s congregations asking to talk in order to get them to join up with him… isn’t this an example of border crossing, which Mrs Schori has been known to yammer on about?
[i]EpiscopalLife Online[/i] reports this today: “A copy of the letter was sent to the diocese’s deposed bishop, Robert Duncan, ‘in his capacity as the leader of those who regard themselves as part of the Anglican diocese.'”
beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing…
Someone who I respect spoke well of Bishop Price, and his sermon at his ordination. However, like Bishop Lee, he appears to be prepared to lie in the service of his master. It was Bishop Price who certified that he had accepted the VOLUNTARY WRITTEN renunciation of orders of a hundred or so Pittsburgh priests. It became irrefutably clear that he had deliberately and deceitfully lied, as had his standing committee, when it was realised that at the time of his supposed voluntary and written renunciation, one of those said priests had already been dead for some time.
We all know who the father of lies is and Bishop Price is apparently prepared to follow him.
What a disgrace – all the more reason to recognise ACNA now.
Ah, but I cannot resist! What price Price? Large and legal fees I see in the future for which this non-canonical and illicit and invalid alleged bishopric is in the act of border crossing which allegedly is an Episcopal no-no per the PB et alia nonWindsorcompliensi.
One can not reconcile good with evil.
Don
In point of fact, they’ve been in civil (if not amicable) conversation over such matters as coordinating use of the cathedral. Obviously the ACNA diocese has much the same attitude towards Price that the TEC diocese has towards Duncan and there’s not much that can be done to change that fact.
At this stage, Price is unlikely to convert anyone who has already joined ACNA, so it really comes down to what sort of public relationship between the two dioceses you want to see. For my part, the present approach seems preferable to daggers constantly drawn.
Interestingly, Christian Associates of Southwestern Pennsylvania (the local ecumenical body) sent their representative to both conventions and – as far as I know – both dioceses are participating.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I trust Bishop Price of the new diocese will invite Bishop Duncan of the continuing diocese to meet with the clergy and people of the new diocese. To do otherwise would appear to be hypocritical.
#7 Pageant Master
For the record it was two dead priests
#10 Jeremy
This is the second insulting letter I have received from Bp Price, first the Renunciation Epistle in October and now the Reconciliation Epistle — both are non-starters. If he wants true reconciliation, then he should base it on being honest, and respectful. The will never be reconciliation until there is recognition of existence.
I’m surprised Kendall chose the Tribune Review article and not the propaganda piece from the Episcopal “News Service” (aka Episcopal Pravda). Price’s letter is, to put it charitably, as disingenuous as the one in which he “accepted” the renunciation of the orders of the priests in the Anglican Diocese. The fact that he chose to write to the Senior Wardens and Vestries of the Rectors whom he had summarily dismissed from ministry is an insult to the congregations and their leadership. The “reconciliation” he proposes is abject “surrender” – he says we promise, honest to God, we won’t execute you and even better, we may even talk to you. It saddens me that this kind of dreck continues to dribble from Price and his employer. It is becoming more and more apparent that Mary McCarthy’s summary of Lillian Hellman’s work might appropriately apply to the words coming forth from the Diocese in Monroeville PA.
Jeremy,
If Price was other than completely disingenuous, he would immediately cease suing everyone in sight. Then he would have to resign and repent of his actions in illegally deposing clergy via the abuse of Canon III.9.8. There can be no reconciliation while he is spending millions in diocesan money and TEC “mission support” funds on his attempt to seize every church in the Anglican diocese, and impoverish every congregation. Nor until such time as TEC chooses to recognize the legitimate orders of all those bishops and priests they have deposed.
As to the supposed “release” of clergy, well, I will quote myself from Standfirm:
From Bishop Price’s letter to the clergy in Nov. 2009:
“Consequently, we are seeking to release those clergy who so desire under the provisions of Canon III.9.8.”
Here is canon III.9.8:
Sec. 8. Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry
If any Priest of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon
IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese in which
such Priest is canonically resident, a renunciation of the ordained
Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall
be the duty of the Bishop to record the declaration and request so
made. The Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not
subject to the provision of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and
for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the Priest’s moral
character, shall lay the matter before the clerical members of the
Standing Committee, and with the advice and consent of a majority of
such members the Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is
accepted, and that the Priest is released from the obligations of the
Ministerial office, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and
spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments
conferred in Ordination. The Bishop shall also declare in pronouncing
and recording such action that it was for causes which do not affect
the person’s moral character, and shall, if desired, give a certificate to
this effect to the person so removed from the ordained Ministry.
______________________________________________________
Rather than declare anything in writing (as required under the canon), priests were required to submit a letter swearing allegiance to TEC, those who did not (some 135, if memory serves) were removed from ordained ministry. Or, more correctly, would have been removed from ordained ministry if any church in Christendom recognized TEC as a church capable of administering discipline. But since it has seen fit to use this same canon against a Bishop of the Church of England, and threatened a bishop in Canada, the only churches I am aware of that recognize these renunciations and depositions are Mexico, Brazil and the ELCA.
For TEC to regain any semblance of respect, the first thing it will need to do is take disciplinary action against all those bishops- from Price to KJS- who have blatantly violated the canons (and the sacrament of Ordination) by wantonly deposing their opposition.
David (and Dan for that matter),
I am obviously not in your position, when it comes to purported deprivation from ministry and the emotions that evokes. Nevertheless, so much of the to-and-from about the depositions seems like shadow boxing. When it comes down to it, your orders have remained as valid as the day you first professed them both objectively and in the eyes of the people who matter (including, let’s be honest, the lion’s share of those in the TEC diocese). Whatever Price and the standing committee may declare for public consumption really doesn’t change those facts on the ground. Frankly, “insulting” gives a degree of stature to the offending parties that is out of all proportion. “Farcical” would be nearer the mark.
tjmcmahon
As to “reconciliation,” I don’t read this quite the way that you seem to understand it. Much of what is being said (on both sides, I sometimes think) is for the benefit of the media. Price isn’t a fool and I suspect he knows that he has nothing with which to entice the ACNA parishes back. Therefore, the most constructive thing for now is the establishment of something akin to a Cold Peace in Pittsburgh that will leave those at the grassroots free to sustain whatever fellowship they can across the divide. We know the lawsuits aren’t going to stop (and I wrote the TEC standing committee telling them that was a mistake) and we know that ACNA are going to press on with the appeal (and I wrote the ACNA standing committee telling [i]them[/i] that was a mistake). Given that the legal battles are going to be a fact of life (at least until the money runs out), a Cold Peace seems to be the least worse option.
Kenneth Price voted for both C056 and D025. Checking out Louie Crew’s pages, he also voted to insist on women’s ministries in every diocese in 1997, voted for Blessing of Same-Gender Unions to be added to Book of Occasional Services (8th resolve to D039), voted for recognizing and affirming fidelity in relationships outside marriage (D039),
I really don’t understand how Jeremy Bonner can stand to be in the same room with this wolf in sheep’s clothing who represents well the radical leftists who are causing the demise of the Episcopal once-Church.
I don’t think this letter is simply for public relations, it is a real attempt to start dialogue in order to get the departing parishes to return to TEC. The leadership of TEC Pittsburgh is operating under the following assumption: that once they win back all the properties, significant numbers of laity (and some clergy) will return to TEC in order to stay with the buildings. Starting to smooth things over now will make the return easier. From following the blogs of Jim Simons and Lionel Deimel it is obvious that they think the return of significant numbers is a real possibility. Sue them and win their property and they will come back- they’ve said it almost exactly in those words. There is of course a kernel of truth in this, when TEC wins the legal battle, which is inevitable IMO, there will be handfuls of people in some parishes who will return. But it will be very small numbers and the parishes will not be sustainable. But this mistaken notion is driving the lawsuits, and is why after each legal victory the press releases from TEC Pittsburgh immediately launch into appeals for “reconcilition and return”. But seriously, ACNA Pittsburgh has moved on and TEC is really out of sight and out of mind. And it appears that most ACNA parishes are starting to prepare for bad legal outcomes, which won’t include coming under the heretic Bishop Price. Speaking of which, it is simply amazing that the pseudo-orthodox in TEC Pittsburgh could have agreed to this bishop who enthusiastically endorses the radical GLBT agenda- what were they thinking?
Thanks Nevin I think your comment (#17) sums it up for me.
Robroy: Jeremy is one of the few voices defending ACNA that remains involved in TEC via being a member of the Trinity Cathedral Chapter. I think its important to note that nobody in our ACNA diocese it mounting any campaigns or writing inticing letters to the the TECsters in Pittsburgh. All of my fellow clergy and lay leaders just want to move on and get with the mission of reaching the lost and Kingdom building in the new Province.
As David (of whom I’m both fond and appreciative, incidentally) has noted, I’m one of the two cathedral representatives on chapter who would probably be considered to be ACNA spokespeople (though I’m sure the other – Wicks Stephens – sometimes has his doubts).
As far as Price is concerned, I’m more concerned with who his successor will be (not that I’ll probably be here to see it, unfortunately). There is one priest in the TEC diocese who is probably about the only person with whom ACNA could in the long term deal (and who, at least for a while, was continuing to use a relief celebrant from ACNA). For me, Price’s interregnum needs to be treated as just that, an interregnum, and the best thing to be done is keep things as civil as possible in the meantime, despite everything working to undermine that (including the hostile acts – perceived and real – in which TEC indulges).
I thought realignment inevitable and voted for it not because I felt Pittsburgh was itself under threat (on that score, I think those conservatives who elected to stay had a point) but because, with the failure of APO, it was unChristian to sit idly by while vulnerable parishes in hostile dioceses were picked off.
ACNA’s decision to go the legal route when negotiations failed was something with which I did not concur and left me in the strange position of being unable to be a part of TEC (except through the peculiar mechanism of the cathedral special resolution) but ambivalent about my participation in ACNA (though I was delegate to their convention and my pledge goes to them). Oddly enough, I recently heard of someone close to the rector of one of the Florida parishes that walked away, who used to be an active member of Church of the Ascension in Oakland (Jonathan Millard’s parish) who feels much as I do.
Since I haven’t as yet felt the call to some other part of the Church Catholic, I assume that I’m meant to go on doing what I’m currently doing in Pittsburgh, including helping carry the burden placed upon our two under-appreciated clergy.
Any money or property handed to TEC Pittsburgh will like other dioceses, probably be liquidated to pay the greedy Beers or his partners as they sue yet other faithful Christians. I can fully understand pursuing this through the Courts, and as Fort Worth shows, the secular courts are far from unsympathetic and unwilling to look behind the unconstitutionally fixed conventions and arrangements behind the rump dioceses.
At the end of the day, consider the Roman Catholic Church in England. Without historic buildings, in the 19th and 20th Centuries, they reorganised once legal restrictions were removed, built new churches, schools and are now rolled out across the land. I hope ACNA does the same, fighting for their property, but at the same time looking forward and evangelising the United States with the gospel of Jesus Christ, as the Anglican Church has received it. The gates of hell, TEC, Rowan Williams or Canon Kearon will not prevail against it. The instruments of the Devil and those who allow themselves to be used by him will always lose.
[i]The gates of hell, TEC, Rowan Williams or Canon Kearon will not prevail against it. The instruments of the Devil and those who allow themselves to be used by him will always lose.[/i]
Pageantmaster,
Forgive me, because it was pleasant to be in agreement with you on another thread, but as long as we go on using that sort of rhetoric I believe we are all compromised.
My father, who has made Augustine of Hippo his life’s work (and was part of the delegation who went to ask John Habgood not to institute David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham back in the 1980s) has been known to remark that the Early Church is often marked by teachers of orthodoxy who are singularly lacking in Christian charity (think Augustine without compunction abandoning the mother of Adeodatus) and teachers of heresy who were models of Christian living.
If true even then, how much more important today to keep things in proportion. Ecclesial realignment could only have happened the way it did; legal (secular) realignment could have happened in a number of different ways.
I saw a story sometime back by AS Haley — it had to do with the National Church needing to use the term ‘mission’ in a new way, so that funds could be used from designated gifts to the DFMS. By speaking of litigation and so forth as ‘missionary’ activity (construed for this purpose as ‘preserving property’ so as to ‘do mission’), the way was cleared for using these funds, and then not having to budget them in other ways. Haley’s account of things was yet more complicated, as I recall, because it had to do with tranferring funds and the relationship between Diocese and National Church.
I mention this because whatever the strategy entails for using ‘mission’ this way, surely the benefactors who gave these gifts for mission will not all concur that this use is proper (or legal). If this story is true at all, it could have a serious impact. It would not look at all good to find that ‘missionary’ gifts were being used to help fund legal work, on the grounds that holding on to property is mission. The general public would find that too cynical, one suspects, and it may also be illegal. I do hope Haley or others are pursuing this. The scandal around money poured into this legal business is on a grand scale.
[blockquote]I really don’t understand how Jeremy Bonner can stand to be in the same room with this wolf in sheep’s clothing[/blockquote]
As I understand it, not only Jeremy but Bishop Duncan too will spend the best part of a day with Bishop Price at the upcoming Cathedral Chapter retreat. And I’d bet any amount that all three of them will behave like gentlemen all day long, without any of them compromising their beliefs.
The following was emailed to our parish just now
Dear Parish family
You may have heard or read online or in Friday’s Tribune Review that Bishop Price of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) has contacted by letter the incumbent clergy and senior wardens of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh parishes with a stated purpose of seeking reconciliation. Scott Smith and I both received these letters on Friday January 22nd. I have listed links to the pertinent documents below.
Since Bishop Price and his diocesan Standing Committee have thus far refused to recognize our diocese or us as parishes of it and have joined a lawsuit to confiscate our property and assets, and have claimed that we, as clergy, have renounced our Holy Orders, we believe meeting with him under the present conditions would be of no value to us or him. The vestry considered Bishop Price’s letter and in brief fashion decided our best course of action was simply not to respond. As for the clergy, we will await counsel from Archbishop Duncan and our diocesan Leadership Team concerning any diocesan directed response to the letter.
It is the desire of the vestry that we first and foremost focus our energies, resources and ministry on the vision of St David’s to be an alive, biblically-based, liturgical church ministering to the families of the South Hills; and, in so being we will be A people for Christ, for the Kingdom of God, and for the world.
Your pastor and friend,
David +
Links
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_663509.html
http://www.episcopalpgh.org/bishop-invites-leaders-to-discussion/
http://www.episcopalpgh.org/docs/ParishLetter01_20_10.pdf
Phil, the Chapter Retreat was last Saturday and Bishop Duncan was not present, I was. He was at the Board of Trustees meeting discussing how to replace the assets TEC is confiscating or has caused to be frozen.
And unfortunately this was the first chapter retreat that I missed, as I was giving my wife moral support while she labored in the lab over the samples from her transplant patients. The last stages of a dissertation tend to be the worst.
I’d have made the same bet about you David, but perhaps not quite any amount!
You underestimate me. Bishop Price and I acted as if we were old friends with nary a whiff of the strife your diocese is continuing
#21 Jeremy Bonner
I probably have more affinity with the approach of Sir Winston Churchill than that of Lord Halifax, and I do not use such language lightly; it is genuinely what I have come to believe in this situation; but I note your admonition, and thank you for it.
RE: “The leadership of TEC Pittsburgh is operating under the following assumption: that once they win back all the properties, significant numbers of laity (and some clergy) will return to TEC in order to stay with the buildings.”
Nevin I think you’re right. They appear to be cluelessly ignorant of how deeply the leavers loathe the institution of TEC/815. The ironic thing is that in the actions of the Pittsburgh “diocese” [sic] associated with TEC, the leavers are coming to loathe those leaders and that . . . entity . . . as well. I just don’t ever see the vast vast majority of leavers wishing to return.
I also don’t really get Jeremy Bonner’s observations above: “For my part, the present approach seems preferable to daggers constantly drawn.”
Why?
Why is it preferable?
It’s preferable for people to pretend to fellowship with the persons who have behaved so contemptibly, rather than be open and publicly honest about how repellent those actions are?
I don’t get that.
It’s like enjoining the wife of the abusive spouse to smile and “act like you like him for the public, dear.”
Sarah
I don’t accept your analogy because I don’t view the legal proceedings (which according to earlier posts is the factor that really stands in the way of any sort of reconciliation) as being a clear case of good and evil; you disagree and so does most of the ACNA leadership and that’s fine but it doesn’t oblige me to do so.
I suspect if TEC had been assertively orthodox in the 1970s and some liberals had tried to walk out with property, the national church would have done precisely what the Presiding Bishop is doing now (and what the Diocese of South Carolina did over the AMIA congregation on Pawley’s Island). We’ve become suddenly tender of congregational rights now at least in part because it’s in our interest to seem forbearing. That isn’t our historical trajectory (if it were Calvary, Pittsburgh, would be the mother church of the Reformed Episcopal Church, since Joseph Wilson probably had a majority of its members behind him in his effort to take the parish out of the Protestant Episcopal Church – he just couldn’t persuade the vestry!).
I would rather that those orthodox clergy and parishes who did not realign but who were part of making the Diocese of Pittsburgh what she is today (and David will concede that they did do that, even if he believes that their courage failed them at the moment of destiny) had the ability to sustain relationships across the divide [i]if they so choose[/i].
I’m also taking the long view that the final shape of the two Anglican provinces is not necessarily determined by which side people elected to take when their diocese realigned. After all, GAFCON opted to indulge in the politics of ambiguity when it rejected the call of John Rodgers to declare itself a new Anglican Communion instanter. No doubt some would prefer that the TEC diocese take on the hue of yet another liberal Pennsylvania Episcopal bastion, if only to draw a contrast with the alternative. I know too many people of good conscience (and for me that’s not something ultimately measured by the lawsuits) in the TEC diocese to wish that upon them.
PS Feel free to address me by my Christian name, which I only use as a signature so that authorship isn’t in question. When you and Matt use the full moniker, it seems a trifle impersonal.
RE: “I don’t accept your analogy because I don’t view the legal proceedings (which according to earlier posts is the factor that really stands in the way of any sort of reconciliation) as being a clear case of good and evil; you disagree and so does most of the ACNA leadership and that’s fine but it doesn’t oblige me to do so.”
Understood — but surely if people *do* believe that it is a matter of good and evil that kind of explains why they’re at “daggers drawn” rather than all interested in “reconciliation.”
Further, some may think that the litigation is what “stands in the way of any sort of reconciliation” — but I don’t believe so at all. I think what stands in the way of reconciliation is that basically the entity connected with TEC in Pittsburgh is now, on the whole, a revisionist entity, based on the clergy and the interim bishop and the decisions of the “Standing Committee,” [sic] and certain orthodox clergy enjoining people not to google the name of the bishop using pietistic and smarmy rhetoric, etc, etc, etc. I just don’t think that the conservatives and revisionists in the US Anglican entities are going to be reconciled — and rightly so, again, in my opinion. [Unless of course we’re so defining down “reconciliation” that it means “treated one another as politely as one does other Buddhists and Hindus and atheists” which of course we all should do anyway. And if that is the case, then lo, they are already “reconciled” since they treated one another “politely” at the Cathedral.]
RE: “I suspect if TEC had been assertively orthodox in the 1970s and some liberals had tried to walk out with property, the national church would have done precisely what the Presiding Bishop is doing now . . . ”
Really? I don’t. I guess it’s another thing that neither of us are obliged to think. I don’t think if whole liberal dioceses had left orthodox TEC — or vast swathes of the vast majority of certain parishes had left TEC — that we would have embarked on the scorched-earth litigation strategy sans negotiation. Not at all. I think we would have accepted negotiation — as indeed Stanton did with Plano, and as Iker offered with his liberal minority, and as San Joaquin and Pittsburgh and even Central Florida did.
But I guess we’ll never know.
RE: “No doubt some would prefer that the TEC diocese take on the hue of yet another liberal Pennsylvania Episcopal bastion, if only to draw a contrast with the alternative.”
Not I — I root for a number of parishes that have “stayed” in TEC even as I have known the individuals leaving TEC, and would so root for any remaining group within TEC that are refugees from departing dioceses. But I haven’t been able to do so as, though there have been any number of parishes that have remained traditional, none of the groups from departing dioceses have done so.
RE: “Feel free to address me by my Christian name, which I only use as a signature so that authorship isn’t in question. When you and Matt use the full moniker, it seems a trifle impersonal.”
I can’t speak for Matt, but on my part it’s not meant to be impersonal. It’s simply my policy in order to not slip up and address people under pseudonyms by their given names, or address people in the wrong way — too informally. I address them by their blog name, whatever it is that they have chosen. Again, it’s not meant to be impersonal — it’s just that I won’t remember to only refer to you by the first of your blog names rather than both.
PS: But thank you for offering that.
The exchange between Sarah and Jeremy has been healthy and instructive and has raised some issues which have caused me to examine my own thoughts and feelings resulting from the conflict among Anglicans here in Pittsburgh. The actions of the TEC diocese would be expected, understandable and consistent with TEC revisionist trajectory if the TEC diocese was largely overseen by the liberals. But it’s not. Most of the leaders (especially clergy) of all the committees, boards and other governing bodies are evangelical or anglo-catholic orthodox folks who in earlier days worked along side those of us who seceded from the Episcopal Church.
My phony-baloney Renunciation Letter was signed by two orthodox priests! The lawsuit which the TEC joined against us was initiated by a Standing Committee with a majority of orthodox clergy and lay people! The current bishop, who supported every issue at General Convention the orthodox have opposed, was appointed at their convention unanimously without a word of dissent from any of the clergy and laity in the TEC diocese.
Has loyalty to TEC trumped truth? Are the orthodox in the TEC diocese emasculated to the point they don’t have the courage to stand up for their own doctrinal and ecclesial convictions? Are they willing to sell out their brothers and sisters in ACNA in a TEC initiated scorched earth policy instead of negotiating fairly?
David, I think it’s basically the same as with the Diocese of Rio Grande. Look at the appallingly heretical slate of nominees for bishop that those folks released.
I think the issue is the same as with most TEC dioceses. You’ve got an immense group of laity who are basically uninformed and clueless, even if traditional — they’re the sort of people who [and I kid you not, this was said after our bishop election by a voting delegate] say things like “well my rector says he’s got to be a good guy — conservative because he’s from Alabama and graduated from the same seminary as my rector [Sewanee]. So he must have good solid values.” Her rector had also told her not to read the blogs — they’re just “causing trouble.” Heh — sound familiar? ; > ) She dutifully voted for Waldo. Needless to say, she was quite shocked and appalled to learn what kind of man she had voted for.
Then you’ve got a group of rabid revisionist clergy. You’ve got a group of some orthodox clergy who are also clueless and naive. You’ve got another group of clergy whom you *thought* were traditional but were really just going along with the majority at the time. And then you have another group of orthodox clergy who aren’t clueless. That latter group translates into “minority” even if on paper you look at the totality and say “but wait — look at all those folks I thought were traditional over there.”
Sarah’s analysis of the conservative clergy in the TEC diocese is spot on. And if we define ‘not clueless’ as referring to those who have or had reservations about the so-called release letter etc, then I think it fair to say that none of them failed to ‘to stand up for their own doctrinal and ecclesial convictions’. But they did so in committee meetings, informal conversations with Standing Committee members and other fora in which they thought they would have a better chance of winning their point than at the Diocesan Convention.
There’s actually a similar division among the clergy who have realigned, and they followed a similar process before the 2008 convention that voted to realign. There were clergy gatherings throughout the six months period before the convention in which some clergy spoke passionately in ways that they did not repeat at the convention itself. Some did the same in committee meetings and informal conversations. Some even realigned with their reservations about the wisdom of doing so still in place, but I don’t think that means that they failed to to stand up for their own convictions either. They stood for them, and perhaps still do, in ways that weren’t/aren’t evident to everyone. Presumably the purpose of making any public stand is to achieve a result, not please the public, and that is only done by making it at a carefully chosen place and time. It’s what is known in military circles, I believe, as the [i]Schwerpunktprinzip[/i].
Choosing such a place and time may even be part of the definition of being ‘not clueless’…
Sarah
I have been following Rio Grande for a long time. Terry and Hazel Kelshaw are old friends and I taught evangelism courses for the Brotherhood of St Andrew all through that diocese in 1990. Very sad to see what has happened. And I remember hearing you speak for the first time at an AAC event right after GC 2003 and then have followed your blogging at SFIF (and sometimes sparred with you — I am now banned from that blog). Neverthe less, my heart broke for you and your fellow orthodox in USC when Waldo was elected. I didn’t think John Burwell had a change given his leadership in SC but I thought Neal Michell was your best (if not only) opportunity to reverse the slide in which USC is now emeshed. I know many like you are called to stay in TEC and continue the fight but gosh it looks so bleak –at least right now. Blessings David
“They stood for them, and perhaps still do, in ways that weren’t/aren’t evident to everyone”. writes Philip Wainwirght. Philip cange “everyone” to “anyone”. Not every public stand is a PR stunt. How can you gain support and momentimum to either stop an unbiblical action or to initiate positive results if you are a leader and don’t in some way stand up. Your current bishop stands for almost everything you don’t. If nothing else, history tells you what happens of you don’t stand up — Germany in 1933.
RE: “And if we define ‘not clueless’ as referring to those who have or had reservations about the so-called release letter etc, then I think it fair to say that none of them failed to ‘to stand up for their own doctrinal and ecclesial convictions’. But they did so in committee meetings, informal conversations with Standing Committee members and other fora in which they thought they would have a better chance of winning their point than at the Diocesan Convention.”
Yeh . . . I kind of thought as much. But still . . . “not clueless conservative clergy” translates into minority in the “diocese” [sic] connected with TEC in Pittsburgh. And I agree with you about the realignment clergy as well.
RE: “It’s what is known in military circles, I believe, as the Schwerpunktprinzip.”
Now you’re just showing off! ; > )
RE: “and sometimes sparred with you—I am now banned from that blog . . . ”
An interesting conflation there — but many have sparred, few to none banned for doing so. Instead they are banned when they 1) accuse SF of deleting an off-topic comment on another thread on a thread that is supposed to be about the ABC, 2) ignore the request to take up the supposed comment deletion via Private Mail so as not to distract the thread with moderating details, 3) quote pious verses from Scriputre at the SF Bloggers denouncing their deleting off-topic comments, and 4) it is then discovered that no comments were deleted of David Wilson’s ever, save for the comments accusing SF of deleting comments on the ABC thread, and the actual comment deletion took place over here at T19 by one of the horrid elves, which was [i]The Final Insult[/i]:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25095#411261
It would have been far far better for you to get banned for something theological — perhaps an off-topic rant about . . . but never mind. . . ; > )
Take heart though. You have *actually* been banned. Others are now prancing around the blogosphere, proclaiming that they have been banned, when they are still perfectly capable of commenting and have not been banned at all [my suspicion is that they have forgotten their user names, but that’s another story]. You have the honor — others are *faking* the honor most unbecomingly. That puts you in a class above . . .
RE: “Neverthe less, my heart broke for you and your fellow orthodox in USC when Waldo was elected.”
Seriously — thank you. However . . . we are all okay, surprisingly. Keep in mind that we all knew — two weeks before — that Waldo would be elected, precisely because we know the clergy of our diocese quite quite well.
Think of the fascination that you — and the folks I hang out with too here in DUSC — will receive when observing over the next several years the *consequences* of the clergy [and lay delegates] doing something so foolish as electing a bishop completely in opposition to the vast [though oft clueless] majority of the laity in the diocese.
— more decline in funding by the 35% who actually know what manner of bishop was elected — and yeh — those guys *know* and will continue spreading the word and educating their friends and pointing out Waldo’s actions to all and sundry over the coming years
— more angry clergy preaching stewardship sermons to their parishes
— expostulations to the troublemakers to “just leave” [heh — this has already occurred too]
— tons of conflict — much of it submerged and underground
— parishes declining and more angry denunciations from outraged clergy
— a bishop who will struggle to figure out how to navigate his own beliefs and the recognition that his laity don’t believe as he does — depending on his integrity we’ll have either honesty, or classic Spinning My Vote And Actions To Look Less Flamingly Revisionist Than It Actually Is speeches and articles
— inevitable efforts by the propaganda machines to try to “train the laity to be more theological and sophisticated and nuanced”
— parish closings — based of course on “mission and ministry” and er . . . the existence of endowments that then go to the diocese in the event of a parish closing [and I know those parishes too]
— lots of talk about “mutual ministry”
— institutionalist clergy wringing their hands and trying to hold off the foaming revisionist clergy
— and me blogging it all, in technicolor detail, with reports streaming in via email [I have a now massive folder of post-election fodder]
Like watching a very slow-moving train wreck.
Might it have been different? Sure. But the clergy don’t want *growth*. They want simply a comfortable place to *be*, theologically, at least . . . as long as they are in DUSC. And when they move on to their next dioceses, having successfully scuttled their DUSC parishes . . . they’ll want another *comfortable place to be, theologically*. Revisionists don’t want “growth.” And that puts their values into conflict with many many laity who rightly recognize growth as The Thing That Will Keep Their Parish Alive.
It is going to be a simply fascinating decade.
[i] While a discussion about being banned from a blog might be interesting, it is completely off topic. Please return to the original thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
I was wondering when an Elf would appear 🙂
ARRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH . . . . [thud, clatter clatter clatter]
[kick kick kick kick kick]