The Somerset Anglican Fellowship resolved a three-year dispute with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Monday.
Property and legal disagreements arose in 2008 after members of St. Francis-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church decided to break apart from the diocese because of theological differences. St. Francis is located in Somerset.
Under the supervision of the Rev. Mark Zimmerman, the Somerset Anglican Fellowship formed and began holding services in a suite at Georgian Place.
“amicable solution” ? Leave with only the clothes on your back?
Yep, that’s pretty “amicable” all right.. Perhaps I don’t understand?
Grandmother
I’m glad to see things are moving along in Somerset. Mark is a good priest. Best wishes for the success of all churches there.
I’m pleased to be reminded of the nature of the Episcopal “Diocese” of Pittsburgh leaders.
I think we’ll be getting a lot of these reminders, and it’s always nice to have character and values confirmed, however negative they are, as long as it’s reality and people may be seen clearly for who they are.
Frankly, it’s more than a little grudging, given that I imagine that the liturgical materials that Somerset Anglican Fellowship received at the time of the separation were the residue of closed churches, which the former diocesan archivist had great difficulty finding room for at Trinity Cathedral (a fact of which I was all too aware in 2006 and 2007 when I was doing research alongside her – hardly room to swing a cat).
If it’s a choice between such materials gathering dust and being put to sacramental use by [b]someone[/b] I know which I would choose.
And, it’s worth recalling that Mark+ and those who went with him took what I would consider to be the better course in relation to their former church building.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
“The diocese includes about 9,000 parishes in southwestern Pennsylvania….”
I wonder if anyone checked facts before publication. That is 2000 more parishes than TEC has.
In my view being required to return a few hymnals and a few liturgical items is petty and vindictive. I know Mark paid $400. of his own money to have the chalice and paten restored. I wonder if TEC will give him his money back?
RE: “petty and vindictive. . . . ”
But I do think it’s an important window on the character of the leaders in the TEC “diocese” of Pittsburgh.
Wow…quibbling over old prayerbooks and candlesticks. I think we just hit a new low…even for the Episcopal church. I hope they don’t want the used toilet paper and the old carton of milk back too.
If I buy up all the ’28 BCPs and ’40 hymnals at the next TEC rummage sale, do I have to wait 5 years before using them? Or does that only apply if I let an ACNA bishop hold one?
Note to all remaining in TEC- give your rector a chalice and paten on the next anniversary of his ordination. Doesn’t need to be anything fancy. Make sure you raise all the money in cash, off the parish books. And get yourself a prayer book. And some candlesticks that look nice on your side table. And don’t sign a pledge card, the bishop might treat it as a binding contract. If you build a new church building, set up a separate real estate holding company to raise the money and build it, and lease the building to the parish. Short term lease.
A good idea, but first make sure that your diocese and TEC are specifically not included in any of the legal documents. I’d simply call the building a ‘church building’ which is available for lease, but I’d be picky about whom I’d lease it to. Certainly not a TEC mission or parish.
Jeremy Bonner, can you confirm that this agreement actually only involves the return of certain liturgical materials (including hymnals)? If so, as others have said, that the TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh would legally pursue those who left their church buildings for rented space absolutely beggars belief.
I’m with Sarah. What a window into their souls.
Todd,
No I can’t because the exact details are not being disclosed by either side. I was inferring from what what Mark+ was quoted as saying in the article. There may be other property involved.
Best wishes for all churches!!
There seems to be a rush to victimhood on this thread. Has anyone stopped to consider that the symbolic return of a few items might be in this package so that it is acceptable to the courts, who have to approve this settlement based on the courts rulings thus far? I personally know many fine leaders on the Episcopal side in Pittsburgh, including my rector. And I would not be even slightly surprised if the Episcopal diocese never gets around to collecting the items, or for that matter if the Somerset Anglicans simply say that they don’t want them anyway. Pittsburgh should not be read as San Joachim or Fort Worth. Most of the folks that I know simply want to conclude this (relatively) amicable divorce.
Two questions: Why was it necessary for Somerset to acknowledge the “Dennis Canon” if it was “allowed” to remain in the Anglican Diocese? Why did the TEC entity believe it could interfere with Somerset’s purchase of an old Presbyterian Church after the break was confirmed by two conventions of the Anglican Diocese? It appears the TEC entity wants more than a few liturgical vessels, hymnals and prayerbooks. That’s what makes the TEC entity’s actions appear slightly sleazy. But like Brutus, they’re honorable folks, and after all, the churches choosing to remain with the Anglican Diocese deserve to be treated shabbily.
So all parties in the two proposed property resolutions report to be very happy with the settlements. I do recall a time when the Anglican Diocese held the checkbook, and Bp Duncan stated that he would treat those who want to leave his church to join the Episcopal Church a chance to be treated fairly. I wonder….. in his scenario would that mean that they need to honor their mortgage to him, if they had one, for instance? It seems to me that both sides threw themselves at the courts, which have spoken. Thus all parties will have to frame their language based on that ultimate outcome. Could it be that St. Philips (Willow Creek east?) simply didn’t consider ACNA affiliation essential, and some tainted candlesticks were not of great consequence to Somerset?
“and some tainted candlesticks were not of great consequence to Somerset?” Well, Peter help me understand if the candlesticks were not of great consequence to Somerset, why were they of such consequence that TEC made them a reqirement for a settlement?
I am delighted that our good friends of the Somerset Anglican Fellowship have been able to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement with the Episcopal Diocese and will now be able to move forward in their very fine ministry with clarity.
I understand there is a plan by SAF to purchase new property, and I imagine these issues needed to be resolved so that there wouldn’t be problems with questions down the road.
From the point of view of the Episcopal Diocese, every parish that was a member of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh up to and including the October, 2008 convention continues to be a member of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh until removed, following the procedures indicated in Paragraph Two of the 2005 Stipulation signed by Bishop Duncan to resolve the lawsuit brought by Calvary Church, by canonical action.
In reply to David’s question above, I think the function of the acknowledgment of the Dennis Canon is to build into the agreement the recognition that when Somerset Anglican Fellowship was admitted to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2008, prior to the “realignment” vote, it became, like every other parish of the Episcopal Church, subject to the canons of the Episcopal Church. I personally dislike the Dennis Canon, and if I had the opportunity to vote to overturn it at General Convention, I would do so. But I do recognize that it is what it is now, and as a priest of the Episcopal Church and the Rector of a parish of the Episcopal Church, I acknowledge its authority.
It is in fact the Dennis Canon that stands behind Paragraph Two of the 2005 Stipulation. (If SAF waited until after the 2008 Convention to be admitted into the Anglican Diocese, then this all wouldn’t have been necessary for them. SAF would never have been a parish of the Episcopal Church. But I recall there was a strong desire by some in leadership to have as many deputies on the floor at that convention as there could be the vote for “realignment.” This is a consequence of that decision.
I don’t know what the items were that SAF returned. Perhaps they had been lent to SAF from the Archives while those Archives were under the control of the Anglican Diocese. Judge James’s order enforcing the Stipulation included the Archives with the Paragraph One assets returned to the control Episcopal Diocese. If SAF wishes to continue to use items from the diocesan Archives, they should probably make a request to the Archivest for a “renewal” of the loan. I would hope that request would be responded to favorably, as I very much agree with Jeremy that it would be better to have these items serving their intended purpose in Christian worship.
I was also very pleased to read in the material about this settlement that Mark Zimmerman, Lenny Anderson, and the people of SAF and St. Francis in the Fields are working together in ministry in the Somerset region with a sense of collegiality and friendship. Mark and Lenny are both personal friends of mine, and I know them both to be priests of integrity and dynamic evangelical faith. We are all blessed, and Christ is lifted up, through their continued service in ministry here in Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Bruce Robison
RE: “There seems to be a rush to victimhood on this thread.”
I see no victimhood on this thread. I merely see acknowledgement by most of just how loathsomely — yet again, since we’ve seen it on other threads as well with other parishes — the leaders of the Episcopal “diocese” of Pittsburgh have behaved.
Truly repellent behavior. But behavior that we can all learn from, so that we know what sorts of people we’re dealing with.
Thanks Bruce for your thoughts. Two points:
Ann Rodgers in her PPG article suggested that SAF agreed to “acknowledge the existance of the Dennis Canon” which to me is much different than “acknowledging the authority of the Dennis Canon” as you state. I can agree with SAF that the Dennis Canon exists but that’s as far as it goes.
Secondly, the liturgical items from the Archives were not on loan but were given to SAF from the diocese before the realignment vote. So it seems petty to demand their return.
David, that’s fine. “Authority” was my word, not the agreement’s. The agreement between SAF and the Episcopal Diocese acknowledges and assumes that in October, 2008, the Somerset Anglican Fellowship became a parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, and that the “Dennis Canon” existed then and continues to exist in the Episcopal Church. It had, I guess, and has, for all parishes of the Episcopal Church, the same “authority” as any other “exisiting” canon of the Episcopal Church.
I was not aware and don’t know now the conditions related to the liturgical items. If they were the property of the Archives and on loan to SAF because it was a parish of the diocese at the time the loan was made, then it makes sense that they now would be returned to the Archives, since the parish will no longer be a part of the diocese. Though if SAF wished to continue to use them, I imagine they could simply ask the Archives for a renewal of the loan. I personally think that it would be a good idea. If the items were in fact properly given or sold to SAF while SAF was a parish of the Episcopal Diocese, as you indicate, then they would become part of the assets of the parish subject to negotiation under Paragraph Two of the Stipulation. If these items were part of an older memorial gift, with meaning as a part of the legacy of the diocese, then I would think the diocese would be reluctant to sell or give them away to an “outside the diocese” congregation–though, as above, I would think a loan might have been an acceptable solution. If this was simply communionware and candlesticks, etc., without legacy value, then perhaps the departing parish might have offered, and the Archives might have approved, a cash payment to sell the items. If they were simple items, a $1 payment would make sense to me–though I’m not, obviously, on the negotiating team. If we were talking about jewel-ornamented chalices, etc., then the payment might need to be more reflective of the actual value.
But I would simply note that we have no actual knowledge of the negotiating process that led to the “mutually agreeable” conclusion. The assumption here is that the diocese “demanded” these items. Do we know that the folks of Somerset Anglican Fellowship may not have come to the table saying, “Oh, by the way, we have these things that we got several years ago from the diocese, and now as we are moving on we think they should be returned to the diocese?” We actually don’t know, and I think it’s wrong to assume that we do.
Bruce Robison
Frankly Bruce, the “I don’t agree but…†argument is getting old. Yunz said that you were staying to change TEC from within. When you went to General Convention not one word was said about consecrating a lesbian bishop or a plea from the floor to stop the lawsuits against those whom you agree are honest and evangelical leaders. You may not agree, but. The difference is that when we do not agree we stand up or act. I suppose the priests who passed by the beggar on the road to Samaria didn’t agree he should be lying there beaten and bloodied, “but†they had a good reason not to get involved; defilement, or association, or whatever. [James 2:12-17
For whatever reason the rest of my post was cut of…
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:12-17
I sincerely doubt that the impetus for the return of the items came from SAF. The communionware came from defunct parishes so to which diocese does “legacy of the diocese” pertain? I suppose from the TEC point of view, we have no right to claim any legacy.s It can’t be both ways. If you claim, as you do, that realignment was impossible and all ACNA parishes have always been part of TEC then how can there be “parishes outside the diocese” . The items were given to a SAF as a TEC parish —no different then if they were given to All Saints’ Bridgeville
Lest ACNA supporters outside Pittsburgh become overly convinced of the Manichean nature of the struggle under way here, I would note that there is no absolute purity on either side.
A case in point is the treatment meted out to Jay Geisler, who is now the rector at [url=http://stpetersbrentwood.org/about-us/our-rector[/url]St. Peter’s, Brentwood[/url], but until last year was at Mark Lawrence’s old parish of St. Stephen’s, McKeesport.
Jay is probably one of the most idealistic (some would say naive, but it’s a quality I would be glad to emulate) priests in either Diocese and one who remains a welcome visitor to most ACNA parishes and is an adjunct professor at Trinity School for Ministry. St. Peter’s is a good fit for him, since it’s where healing ministry in the Diocese was launched by Richard Davies in the 1950s.
At McKeesport, Jay was striving in the years after realignment to keep together his conservative blue-collar parish, generally opposed to realignment but with a vocal ACNA minority. Last year – as he told me – he had a possible arrangement worked out whereby the parish could host an ACNA mission congregation (which could call its own priest). He invited Archbishop Duncan to attend the meeting so that those leaning to ACNA would be represented. The Archbishop came, but not only indicated – and not in advance – that he didn’t think the proposition workable, but also made no acknowledgment of the generosity of the proposal or of Jay’s yeoman service as a priest under him.
So I suggest everyone keep in mind how this process is affecting us all. There’s a great deal of talk of law (secular and otherwise) and precious little talk of grace and none of us are coming out clean.
David, it is my opinion, and I have stated it over and over again in many venues, that–whatever the courts may decide about the legal continuity post-October,2008, of the pre-October, 2008, Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh–there is a moral and spiritual heritage that both the Anglican and Episcopal Dioceses of Pittsburgh share. And my prayer is that as the dust settles–as it is beginning to–from the events of 2008, we will find more ways, good, healthy, spiritually sound ways, to affirm that heritage together. It may take a while, given many anxieties and some of the wounds that have been inflicted (and sometimes self-inflicted) in the recent past, but I think we’ll get there.
In any event, I would understand that if the diocesan Archives have a policy about the “giving” of things from the Archives of the diocese to parishes of the diocese for continued use, it might make sense, when a parish formally leaves the diocese, for those items to be returned. I wasn’t actually aware that the Archives “could” make a permanent gift or sale of these kinds of properties, memorials, etc.
I know when St. Peter’s and St. Mary’s Churches in Oakland were sold back in the 1990’s, the liturgical items and furnishings were not included in the sale, but went to the diocesan Archives. Some of those things are now, I know, in use at Franklin Park–and perhaps this is where the things used at SAF were from as well. But the assumption would be that if, say, Franklin Park were some day to close its doors, the “stuff” would go back to the diocese. In this sense all the Dennis Canon really does is in fact give a “national canon” enforcement to what our local canons already have said about parishes and the diocese and what happens to “stuff.”
I would entirely and enthusiastically support the idea that the materials of the Archives of the Episcopal Diocese be available for use in parishes of the Anglican Diocese, on the same terms as they would be in parishes of the Episcopal Diocese, so long as it was understood that should any of those parishes at some point in the future close their doors or have no further use of those materials, they would be returned to the Archives. I’m not on that committee, but when I have the opportunity I’ll voice the opinion.
Bruce Robison
Jeremy: Your opinion and mine concerning Jay Geisler differ greatly. You say “At McKeesport, Jay was striving in the years after realignment to keep together his conservative blue-collar parish, generally opposed to realignment but with a vocal ACNA minority”
I would say the his parish had an ACNA majority with a generally conservative rector opposed to realignment. When the duly elected vestry sought to enact a resolution to realign with the ACNA Diocese, he ruled the motion out of order and adjourned the meeting. He then called Bp Price and had the vestry dismissed and replaced with TEC loyalists. The majority of the parish now worship in a garage. St Stephen’s TEC now has an ASA of 35. Three months after Jay’s power play he resigned the parish and fled to Brentwood. I think we have a difference as well as what constitutes mistreatment and leadership.
Bruce: I hope we can work out some of these things in the way you suggest. Perhaps a joint committee of ACNA and TEC reps could be formed for that purpose
David,
I agree. On that matter (and perhaps some others) we differ. Jay read the parish by-laws as not permitting the resolution that was passed, which is why he acted he did. Perhaps he was wrong.
But then again, perhaps Archbishop Duncan was wrong to sign the 2005 Stipulation.
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder.
[blockquote]Dan Crawford wrote:
Two questions: Why was it necessary for Somerset to acknowledge the “Dennis Canon†if it was “allowed†to remain in the Anglican Diocese? Why did the TEC entity believe it could interfere with Somerset’s purchase of an old Presbyterian Church after the break was confirmed by two conventions of the Anglican Diocese.[/blockquote]
Hi Dan — just to say
(1) I believe that the legal position of the TEC Diocese is that SAF was properly admitted as a parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in October, 2008, and thus has continued from then until now to be a parish of the Episcopal Diocese. (We do not, as you know, believe that the “break” was confirmed by “two conventions,” but believe instead that those actions were out of order and without force. We understand and acknowledge the practical results of division, but we do not believe that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has ever ceased to be a part of the Episcopal Church.)
With this agreement, based on Paragraph Two of the 2005 Stipulation, SAF is [i]now[/i] “removed” from the roster of parishes of the diocese. Membership in the Anglican Diocese is not an “official status” that a parish of the Episcopal Diocese can have, but from the official point of view of the TEC diocese SAF can [i]now[/i] choose to affiliate with any denominational body it desires to affiliate with . . . .
(2) And the answer to the second question follows the answer to the first. If the SAF is legally understood in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a parish of the TEC Diocese, admitted in October, 2008, then the 2005 Stipulation, paragraph two, and all other canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh would apply governing the purchase or sale of assets or the separation of a parish from diocese.
I don’t believe SAF or, in fact, any other parish that was in the Episcopal Diocese on or prior to the 2008 Convention would want to purchase, encumber, or sell property without clarification of the possible legal standing of the TEC diocese. I would doubt, for example, that a bank would want to underwrite a mortgage if there was a potential issue with the parish being able to hold clear title, and I would doubt that any donor would want to contribute money for the purchase of a building for an Anglican parish in the present circumstance.
The agreement between SAF and the Episcopal Diocese thus resolves this problem, with the Episcopal Diocese relinquishing any legal claim and releasing the parish from any further canonical obligations as a parish of the Episcopal Diocese.
It’s an awkward process, certainly. But it is the process that Archbishop Duncan and Calvary Church and Judge James signed-off on in 2005, and we seem to be stuck with it.
Bruce Robison
Bruce
The Diocese amends its C&C by majority vote in duly elected conventions. The lone member remaining of the Standing Cmte loyal to TEC appoints his own Standing Cmte asks the PeeBee to de-recognize the elected Standing Cmte and recognize the rump Standing Cmte. A rump special convention is called which nullifies all the legislation which former conventions duly passed by majority rule.
This is a travesty.
I understand, David. Even in a democracy there are constitutional limits to what you can do “by majority vote,” and those of us who were after the convention in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church and those of us who were after the convention in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Province of the Southern Cone have different views of the constitutionality of the actions that left us who were once one bunch in two bunches.
I’m sorry it happened, as I think we were all of us together better than either of us is now separately. But I know God will find good things for us all to do.
Bruce Robison
RE: “The Archbishop came, but not only indicated – and not in advance – that he didn’t think the proposition workable . . . ”
I wholeheartedly agree with Archbishop Duncan — and I’m a member of TEC. Furthermore — saying the truth about what one thinks about a potential “solution” is in no way abusive — nor is it in any way comparable to the behavior of those within the TEC “diocese” of Pittsburgh regarding the lawsuits and the “settlement” stipulations they have demanded, which are clearly with a vindictive eye towards eliminating ACNA parishes. A baby can see that.
May they not succeed. And may they decline as a diocese, considering the character and values they have displayed.
RE: “And my prayer is that as the dust settles—as it is beginning to—from the events of 2008, we will find more ways, good, healthy, spiritually sound ways, to affirm that heritage together.”
I’m not certain why anyone over in the ACNA diocese would have any desire to consort with or “work with” or particularly to “affirm that heritage” — the one which the TEC leaders have blown apart to smithereens — with such people.
They may, of course, do as they please. But I’d counsel a vast distance from the leaders of the TEC “diocese” since they’ve demonstrated what sort of people they are. And don’t turn your back on them if you’re serving in a soup kitchen either. They’ve demonstrated — in spades — their hatred and vindictiveness towards ACNA as an organization through their “settlement” demands.
What a disgrace. More and more a disgrace, starting with serious and blatant *and obvious* violations of the canons, carrying on with lawsuits to take parish property, and then engaging in the most troll-like and spiteful settlement demands possible designed to attempt to stamp out the entity which they despise and fear so much — ACNA in Pittsburgh.
Really grotesque behavior — and revealing of character and values of the leaders.
Why on earth would Christians wish to engage in any kind of common action with such people? May as well engage in mission with Schori and Bennison and Chane. Same character.
Sarah,
You know, there are at least a dozen members of my TEC parish who have family who are members of parishes of the Anglican Diocese. Parents. Kids. Brothers and sisters. Cousins. Folks who get together on Sunday afternoon at Grandma’s house. Dave Wilson and I in fact share a very wonderful family. Husband is on David’s vestry now. Wife was on mine before they moved down to Peters Township. Grandma still a member of my parish . . . . My guess is that this kind of thing is true to some extent in just about every TEC and Anglican parish of the two dioceses. Pittsburgh is that kind of place–lots of extended families, long-standing relationships. There are a few angry voices on the internet, sure, but the reality of our relationships is much more nuanced, and mostly affectionate. A member of my vestry has as a business partner and closest personal friend a member of the Anglican parish just up the road from us. My wife is a member of a long-time clergy-wives prayer and support group including wives of clergy of both the TEC and Anglican dioceses. I consider Dave and Gale Wilson and Dan and Della Crawford–with Dave and Dan having already sparred with me on this thread–to be superb, profoundly respected colleagues and friends. My wife Susy and I enjoyed the Super Bowl a couple of weeks ago with dinner and TV watching with the rector of a nearby suburban Anglican parish and his wife. My TEC parish is having a fundraising musical event this Saturday, and one of the beneficiaries is a neighborhood youth outreach ministry that was begun years ago by John Paul and Marilyn Chaney of Seeds of Hope Anglican Parish, and which our parish has supported with money and volunteers and participants consistently ever since. Seven TEC parishes, including mine, continue to support with funds and volunteers the ministry of Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship, an Anglican congregation with a special ministry to homeless veterans. I had lunch last week with a deacon, another old friend, who is starting a house church church-plant four blocks from my church. I asked her, “how can I and we help you?” When Scott Quinn’s mother died last year the pews were full of Anglican diocese clergy. When Barbara Knotts died last month, a wonderful priest and friend, the congregation included many TEC clergy, who were greeted warmly by Archbishop Duncan, and there were many affectionate and sad embraces after that service. We are in fact on both sides of this doing, trying to do, the best we can, by the best light we have.
There are some people around here who are hurting, mad, afraid, even hostile. On both sides of the divide. I don’t always feel great about the actions of those in leadership on my side of the stream, and I suspect David and Dan and Jeremy don’t always feel great about the actions of those in leadership on the other side. We are trying to sort out some hard stuff, and in two different communities where there are–in both–a diversity of perspectives about the best way to work things out. My guess is that if we could any of us reel back in some of the things we have said and done over the past few years, we would do so in a heartbeat. All of us. But fortunately, among Christian friends, while we can’t turn back the clock, there is and can be the grace of forgiveness. Please do keep us in your prayers.
Bruce Robison
Sarah (33),
It’s in every way comparable. It was a possible solution, it was worth exploring and it was still possible to be gracious in dismissing it.
I suspect that had this sort of conflict arisen in the 19th century and had it reached the courts – which, excluding Cheney’s Christ Church, Chicago, it did not – we would be seeing the same sorts of charges of bad faith, vindictiveness and lack of Christian charity as we are now (they certainly made their appearance in pamphlet literature). And we would be seeing the same sort of legal maneuverings over church property. Some of the canon lawyers whom TEC have invoked in their legal submissions – canon lawyers, by the way, whose theological orthodoxy is not at issue – gave short shrift to the idea of equitable division of assets.
But of course we – T19 readers – would say that the rhetoric was inappropriate because both the high churchmen and the low churchmen were “sound” on the essentials of the faith. Now, because one side is unsound, it’s open season.
And while the TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh isn’t San Joaquin or Fort Worth, it also isn’t Albany or Central Florida or Dallas. That is a reality with which I am coming to terms. But there are people on both sides who do want to work together (and in some cases are doing so) and I’m sure they’ll be glad to know that you have no objection to them doing so. 🙂
It’s a tough situation. I have many dear friends in the TEC diocese that I still care for but like Sarah I see those actually driving the TEC litigation ship as vindictive and petty and w/o an iota of grace. They are determined to win at any cost and to discredit Bp Duncan and the ACNA. And sadly those in the TEC diocese who do not agree with the ACNA haters have not or will not oppose them. Thats the price you pay when you compromise. Their 2008 anti-realignment coalition was a virtual deal with the devil
Two questions for those with knowledge:
1. I have found no reference to litigation involving SAF. The TEC diocese press release refers to “potential disputes.” If I were SAF, I would want any questions regarding potential claims by TEC resolved before purchasing the new church. There has been much focus in this thread on the returned liturgical items, but who requested this settlement? Was the return of these items a face saving gesture for the TEC diocese to obtain their binding recognition that SAF is no longer affiliated with TEC, thereby paving the way to purchase the new property free of any possible TEC claims?
2. I see the pre-2008 ASA of St. Francis was 170. It is now 30. Did the other 140 go to SAF?
wildfire [37]: The answer to #1 is only in the knowledge of the negociators. Number 2 you are right. SAF now has a ASA of over 180 and St Francis has an ASA of 30 and claims 55 mrmbers according to a newpaper article this week.
Thank you.
As I implied in my question, if I were counsel for SAF I would have wanted a release or renunciation of any claim from the TEC diocese and would have asked for one.
RE: “It’s in every way comparable.”
Really? Stating that a proposed solution is not a good idea is the same as spitefully making demands during settlements like “don’t join ACNA”? That’s the same to you?
Um — okay.
Like I said — different values entirely then.
RE: “But there are people on both sides who do want to work together . . . ”
I’m sure there are. Just pointing out that — considering the character of the TEC “diocese” leaders — those on the ACNA side better watch their back.
RE: “and to discredit Bp Duncan and the ACNA. . . . ”
Yup — that’s what this is about. Their hatred and fear and rage at ACNA and Duncan.
And we all see that too.
Thankfully, all of this is public on the net so that people can be aware and can also recall it years from now in case the nature of the leaders of the TEC “diocese” ever gets hazy in people’s minds.
What a blessing it is to not be able to hide it — instead it is out in the open for anyone to discover and note and spread to their friends.
I remain so thankful for the blessing of the Internet and this blog — thank you Kendall!
I would have thought that an offer to host an ACNA congregation – which could call its own priest – by someone who was still in TEC was worthy of more than to be dismissed simply as a “power play.”
When I say “comparable,” I mean that I expect my Archbishop to adhere to a higher standard, precisely because of what he proclaims ACNA to be and to follow. In a crisis, it’s often not how you treat your open enemies that’s most revealing (though it can tell you something) but how you treat former friends with whom you disagree. I dislike the way that members of the “gang of 13” were treated after they made their feelings about realignment clear. The assumption is that the terms of the settlements are precisely as they would wish and they would not change them one iota had they the making of them (and have said nothing, publicly or privately to the contrary).
I’ve made clear to the TEC Standing Committee what I think of the St. Philip’s settlement and heard from no one except Bruce.
Actually, I got this from Andy Roman (the chancellor)
[i]As a matter of policy, the Diocese does not comment on the existence of, or course of, settlement negotiations. St. Philip’s Church and the Diocese agreed upon a statement describing the settlement, which I assume you have seen. It is posted on the Diocesan website if you have not seen it. If the Diocese were to comment on the course of settlement negotiations in this or any other case, it could affect the ability of the Diocese to reach future settlements. Experience shows that parties are more inclined to negotiate and that settlements are more easily achieved when the process remains confidential. Therefore, we must decline your request for further information on the course of these settlement negotiations, and decline any obligation to correct your assumptions and assertions if they are incorrect or if we disagree with them.[/i]
I agree with you that – particularly from a historical perspective – it’s better that everything be out there and we can all make up our own minds. (On which note, I hope Greg is doing something to archive Stand Firm.)