The Rt. Rev Kenneth L. Price, Jr.
Dear Bishop Price,
We were gratified to read, in your letter of January 20, that you were writing in a conciliatory spirit. As you know, a number of us in the Diocese have been working diligently with those in your fold to find helpful ways of moving forward in this difficult season. As the Standing Committee of the Diocese, we heartily endorse your desire for conversation with us, especially if it leads to concrete ways in which we might work through our mutual misunderstandings and divisions. For our part, we in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh continue to be eager to welcome back those parishes and clergy who have left our diocese. As you know, we continue to recognize the orders of those clergy who have left the diocese and make no claim on the property of parishes who are in your fold, making any transition back to us a simple transaction.
To this end, we would be grateful if a few of us, clergy and lay leaders in the diocese, could meet with you at your earliest convenience to see how we might together forge a better way forward, particularly concerning the litigation that is currently before the courts.
It would be most helpful to all if we could discuss our mutual hopes, desires and concerns for the future in a way that created space for reconciliation in the truth of the Gospel and mission in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
In Christ,
The Standing Committee, The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh
The Rev. Karen Stevenson, President
Mrs. Gladys Hunt-Mason
The Rev. Geoffrey Chapman
Mr. Kenneth Herbst
The Rev. Jonathan Millard
Mr. William Roemer
The Rev. Daniel Crawford
Mr. Stuart Simpson
Checkmate.
But for the tongue-in-cheek “those who have left our diocese” part, most commendable. I wish we could all (and I do mean all) get to the point of acknowledging the existential reality of two overlapping dioceses and move on from there.
I hope that a meeting ensues.
Boo-Yaa!
Well written, lovely spirit (with caveat noted in Jeremy’s post). I hope it is taken seriously.
Heh.
A nice poke in the eye, however well-phrased.
And with plausible deniability too. I like it.
Price won’t.
Yep. That’s what I’m talking about.
Yes indeed. Well played.
Peace,
-ms
Price may lose the match but he’s fully prepared to seize the board and the pieces.
Dan,
If Bishop Price accepts, will the Standing Committee actually meet with him?
Jeremy, I can’t imagine that the Standing Committee would make this offer, and then not follow through – though it does look like the offer is that “a few of us, clergy and lay leaders in the diocese, could meet with you”, not necessarily the Standing Committee members. I don’t know whether Bishop Price had that in mind – it sounds like he wanted to meet with individual parish representatives.
The lawyers in the property case might see this as a dangerous move, and I’d be willing to bet that they won’t allow such a meeting.
I certainly hope so Gillian. Some of the comments here seem to read the letter simply as a response “in kind” and I would hope that we were not indulging in that sort of thing. You’re right, of course. It doesn’t formally propose a meeting with the Standing Committee.
Mr. Crawford:
If you know that Bishop Price is ready to “seize the board” why did you allow your name to be on the letter? It shows me that at least one name on the letter is not sincere. Too bad.
This response was worthy of Bishop Iker!
I doubt the lawyers could prevent such a meeting. They could of course advise against it, but most commercial lawyers are open to direct discussion between two litigants, with appropriate safeguards such as a written agreement that nothing said can be used in evidence.
I would have thought the letter should be taken at face value – the offer is there for +Price to meet with a few clergy and influential lay people, if he is serious. The implication is pretty clear that whether more formal meetings follow would depend on the bishop’s attitude displayed at the first meeting.
The tone of the letter is excellent. It says “we are in a strong position with no worries. Deal with us or not, we will survive”.
A discussion with +Price may be worthwhile – he may be having second thoughts about the effect of TEC’s strategy on his own diocese, or indeed on his pension. Its the elephant always in the room: “Can TEC afford to win these law suits?”. +Price may be looking nervously at those dioceses who have won cases against the departers, and wondering if he really wants such a “victory”.
Continuing on the same theme, I think many bishops and influential lay people in TEC really believed that these law suits were a knock-out blow: “if they can’t take the property these dissenting congregations will dissipate or come crawling back”.
Now that they have won some cases, it must be starting to dawn on some of the bishops that things aren’t working out as they expected – by and large the dispossessed congregations continue as before.
I think the earlier ideas were more on the money. I sincerely believe that Price, in his clueless idiocy, believes that people will come toddling back once they lose their property.
He just doesn’t grasp just how repellent national TEC [and now the “diocese” [sic]] is to so many many people.
If it’s a peck in his eye, he won’t let on that he feels it. He’ll belt out a hearty Santa-Clause chuckle, and let it roll off of him.
Whether or not he’s a clueless idiot is not the issue – he has been working with 815 before this bruha, and is partially supported by the Diocese of Southern Ohio. He’ll have a few aces up his sleeve.
Don’t underestimate him… Just sayin’.
The one thing that Pitt has going for it is that they have several parishes standing up to Price. Breidenthal’s tactic of calling one priest every day, once a day, for several months, isn’t apt to work in Pitt-Rump’s favor.
So it probably comes down to the courts.
– Elder