Members of St. Philip’s Church in Moon will vote tonight on a proposed settlement with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that would allow them to keep their property but would also require them to cut ties with the rival Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh for at least five years.
The Rev. Eric Taylor, rector of St. Philip’s, said the proposal was the best option for his parish. Since the 2008 split in the original Episcopal diocese, the property of dozens of parishes that voted to leave the denomination and follow Archbishop Robert Duncan into the new Anglican Church in North America has been tied up in legal disputes. The settlement would leave St. Philip’s independent.
[i]”Our commitment is to the people in Moon Township. Our commitment is to the kids and families we care about, to tell them about Jesus. That’s my first concern. I think it’s my first responsibility, be it Anglican or Episcopal or independent,” Rev. Taylor said.[/i]
A very proper sentiment, but how (as I also noted on the Anglican Curmudgeon’s blog), if St. Philip’s accepts this agreement, will Confirmations be administered and from where will they draw new clergy for that five-year interval?
They can’t get them from ACNA and how can they receive them from TEC, if they’re not in Communion with TEC? It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It may also give some indication – if it’s approved – of the weight accorded by parishes like St. Philip’s and St. Stephen’s to ACNA’s ecclesial structures. Of course, by setting itself up so that parishes are sovereign in the area of property, ACNA has rather invited this sort of resolution.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jeremy,
I think the reality will be that the break in affiliation will be something people can live with. Per your question about sacramental episcopal ministry, for example–while the agreement between St. Philip’s and the Episcopal Diocese may mean that Archbishop Duncan would not make an official visitation during this period, there would of course be nothing to prevent individuals who happened to be members of St. Philip’s from being presented for confirmation over the next few years at the Easter Vigil at the Cathedral, or in some other parish. Likewise, from the financial perspective, while St. Philip’s might not pay an assessment to the Anglican Diocese during this interval or participate in diocesan governance and conventions, what would prevent individual members of St. Philip’s from reducing their pledge to St. Philip’s and, again, as individuals, then making their own individual pledges of support to the Anglican Diocese?
In any event, this requirement “disaffiliation” isn’t something I personally like or support–but if an agreement can be reached to allow for the ministry of St. Philip’s to flourish in years ahead, then I’m certainly glad for that. Eric is a great priest and leader and a powerful witness for the gospel of our Lord, and I’m sure he wouldn’t enter into an agreement that he didn’t feel he could support in good conscience.
Bruce Robison
This is nothing but spiteful.
It seeks to restrict freedom of conscience, association and governance, does not recognize or respect the legitimate Biblical issues.
I pray the congregation will be led of the Lord in what they vote to do.
There are several pitfalls here, I think:
*Given present-day American church attendance trends, the probability of the congregation rejoining the ACNA (or any other Anglican body) within five years is pretty slim, it seems to me. People who leave denominational churches for non-denominational ones usually don’t return to denominations. I suspect the same will prove true for entire congregations. Five years is enough time to get comfortable outside of denominational structures. And in many of our parishes, the average person in the pew has little-to-no knowledge, much less love, of Anglicanism anyway; they come from a variety of church backgrounds and often come to an Anglican congregation because they see it as a good, solid local church — not because they’ve been on the Canterbury trail. It’s not impossible for a church to return later, but it is very doubtful.
*Any one congregation doing this hurts orthodox Anglican unity. It hurts orthodox Anglicans outside of TEC, those within TEC, and those across the Anglican Communion. It is, among other things, a vote on ecclesiology, even though people may not recognize it as such. It is also, in some ways, a rejection of Anglicanism — again, even if not intentionally so. And TEC is certainly hoping that one congregation doing this will encourage other congregations to do the same.
This is a very difficult decision for St. Peter’s, I’m sure, and I am in no way minimizing that, nor am I in any way questioning the faithfulness of Rev. Taylor. But their departure will be a loss for all orthodox Anglicans.
Another question might be, after the events last week in Dublin, why would they still want to be part of the Anglican Communion, which appears to be rapidly shedding itself of all but the pretense of orthodoxy.. If the global south were to organize under the Jerusalem Declaration, there might soon be an orthodox worldwide communion to associate with.
This arrangement would make TEC happy, however, as they get to keep their Brand. Whatever it will be worth when they are finished.
Bruce (#2),
I suppose that the strategies you outline could work (and given my membership in a parish with its own unique approach to ecclesial structures, perhaps I shouldn’t carp), but it all seems – as Ralph notes above – so antithetical to catholic ecclesiology.
And perhaps that is the reality to which the last decade has led us (it’s certainly the impression I’ve absorbed from the two ACNA diocesan conventions).
RE: “This is nothing but spiteful.”
No, because something spiteful would not be useful. But it’s always useful to attempt to eliminate important and feared competition.
This is good intel for all of us. We knew it with Schori’s deposition testimony and now it is re-emphasized. Revisionist TECusans hate and fear ACNA — with a nice whiff of grudge-holding as well.
As expected, the divorce has been as bitter as possible.
The chasm is deep and broad.
People from outside western Pennsylvania may not be aware that in the past 25 years or so, big, evangelical Episcopal parishes turning independent is nothing new. Stu Behmig lead Orchard Grove out while Bishop Hathaway was our diocesan head. John Guest left St. Stephen’s in Sewickley a few years later, growing his congregation while meeting in a motel before they broke ground on what is now Christ Church on a hill above Sewickley. Both these men were/are remarkable pastors, and their independent parishes are thriving and healthy. Eric Taylor’s style has always been strongly evangelical. A couple agnostic friends from out of state came to Christ at one of his altar calls years ago, and have been deeply involved in their interdenominational church in the midwest ever since. I pray that Eric and all the folks of St Philip’s continue in God’s good works, regardless of whatever denomination they are to become.
#2- ” . . .there would of course be nothing to prevent individuals who happened to be members of St. Philip’s from being presented for confirmation over the next few years at the Easter Vigil at the Cathedral, or in some other parish. Likewise, from the financial perspective, while St. Philip’s might not pay an assessment to the Anglican Diocese during this interval or participate in diocesan governance and conventions, what would prevent individual members of St. Philip’s from reducing their pledge to St. Philip’s and, again, as individuals, then making their own individual pledges of support to the Anglican Diocese?”
Absolutely! TEC insists that individuals are free to do as they please. It is the parish or diocese they claim they lay hold to. More than one way to skin that apostate cat.
Walter,
St. Philip’s won’t be paying “assessments” to [i]anyone[/i] – ACNA or TEC – during this period. They’ll be paying TEC in the same way that Christ Church, Overland Park, is (presumably still) “paying” the Diocese of Kansas. The building – again presumably – will be vested in the parish corporation. The issue is whether it is wise ecclesiologically for St. Philip’s to do this. As Betsy points out, it will certainly do good as an independent parish.
Incidentally, a little piece of history. Orchard Hill Church walked out of TEC following the General Convention of 1991 and just after it had been profiled in [i]Episcopal Life[/i] as a model of how to do evangelism! And they were able to do so because they had kept the property in their own name; it’s interesting to wonder what Alden Hathaway would have done if the Diocese of Pittsburgh had been able to assert a claim.
Both the clergy of St Philip’s are not members of St Philip’s but priests of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Does the agreement force them to resign their affiliation from the Diocese or the ACNA? Or is this just a parish thing?
The ACNA Director of Communication wrote the following over at the Anglican Curmudgeon: “The clergy of St. Philip’s will remain canonically resident in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, even if St. Philip’s is no longer a parish of the diocese. As far as Confirmations are concerned, I have no wisdom to share on that subject”.
I am sure confirmations and ordinations/clergy transfers could be arranged with many of the Global South bishops who recognize the ACNA.
So as I understand Messrs. Bonner and Robison, the issue here is the withdrawal of the former Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh from Holy Mother TEO, and the response of Holy Mother TEO in its lawsuits against dioceses and churches is perfectly justified. If TEO insists on punitive and unconstitutional sanctions, it is only because the former Diocese set the precedent by insisting it could not go along with Holy Mother TEO’s apostasy. Thus, though ACNA and the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh has not acted like Holy Mother TEO in the past three years, it is nonetheless their fault that Holy Mother TEO is compelled to act as it has. In this we are to believe that TEO is an aggrieved party, and that it has every right to insist on the conditions it imposed on St. Philips. We, according to Messrs. Bonner and Robison, can regard TEO ultimatums as proper and Christian. Yes, indeed, how blind we are to Holy Mother TEO’s blandishments!
The issue is ecclesiology – the Anglican ecclesiology of Henry, the Eight of that name, and his illustrious successor, Elizabeth the first of that name. Instead of destroying churches and hanging, drawing and quartering, TEO substitutes “no affiliation” requirements and crippling, monetary “settlements”. The intent of both strategies is to crush and destroy. It has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the Kingdom of God in Christ.
Dan,
You appear to misunderstand me. I’m presently on record as an expert witness in Fort Worth to the effect that – as a matter of history – there would seem to be nothing preventing diocesan withdrawal, which – along with you presumably – I voted for in Pittsburgh in 2007 (I wasn’t a delegate in 2008).
I’m also on record that engagement in the legal process – by BOTH sides – has been harmful spiritually, in that it has created a sense of “entitlement” to church property that [b]neither[/b] side truly enjoys – it’s not TEC’s property and it’s not ACNA’s property; it’s God’s property. The fact that one has the law or even “right” on one’s side doesn’t mean that one should necessarily take advantage of that fact. Orthodox dioceses have wrestled with that conundrum in the past and Fort Worth and South Carolina both ended up in court during the 1990s with people who were just a little ahead of the realignment curve.
I don’t think that the terms stipulated in the St. Philip’s settlement – as reported – should have been proposed by the TEC Diocese, nor do I think that St. Philip’s should accept them as they are currently proposed, precisely because of their implications for the understanding of communion within ACNA. I reserve judgment on the righteousness or otherwise of financial settlements as a condition for retaining property, though I might gently suggest that if the orthodox contention that TEC is now the proponent of a different Gospel be true, then it’s perhaps unrealistic to get so worked up over “unChristian” behavior.
I must say that, even as one who believes departing parishioners have no right to property, these “non-compete” terms seem unjustifiable. If the conditions of the dispute are such that they allow for settlement, why should one party attempt to impose any limitation on the future alignment of the other? I hope there’s something missing in these accounts. If not, I’m totally perplexed as to why anyone would think this settlement wise.
Although I am not a member of the negotiating committee, and so have no inside knowledge of what are described as “year-long” negotiations, I would simply note that we live in an imperfect world.
On the TEC side, reality, are some who have argued for a scorched-earth policy, to say that there should be no “reward” or even perceived reward for any who have left the Episcopal Church: no possible route to a “happy ending” for those who have departed. On the Anglican side are those who reject entirely the claims of the Episcopal Church and resolutely oppose any negotiation at all. A preference to let the whole business grind on in the courts. In this context, figuring out how the two parties can find enough common ground to achieve something remotely like a win/win resolution is pretty challenging. The “disaffiliation” agreement is, I believe, inappropriate, punitive, even offensive. But if such a temporary disaffiliation makes possible a resolution that would otherwise simply not have happened, perhaps it is the better way. In any event, the leadership of St. Philip’s apparently believed so. There are those on both sides who will find this all “almost” too much to swallow.
I did note with some encouragement this note in Ann’s story:
[blockquote]
Rich Creehan, communications director for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, said that future settlements with other parishes would not necessarily require separation from the Anglican diocese and Anglican Church in North America.
If other parishes of the Anglican diocese want to negotiate, “there is no template of what’s needed to reach an agreement,” he said. “This was an amicably reached agreement . . . It was a voluntary negotiation, carefully conducted over the course of a year.”[/blockquote]
Untangling all the tangled jumble of our situation here in Pittsburgh is going to take some time and is going to be messier than any of us would like. If we can all of us, most of us, some of us, find an “amicable” spirit and at least a hint of the grace of Christian charity in the midst of it all, that will be a witness to those who live around us and watch our unfolding psychodrama with, I’m afraid, some amusement. “These Christians, how they love one another,” etc.
Bruce Robison
RE: “If we can all of us, most of us, some of us, find an “amicable†spirit and at least a hint of the grace of Christian charity in the midst of it all, that will be a witness to those who live around us and watch our unfolding psychodrama with, I’m afraid, some amusement.”
Yes. What a shining moment of Christian charity we all see from the TECusa “diocese” of Pittsburgh.
My hope is that traditional Anglicans of whatever stripe, including in TEC, will remember this.