what is the current situation in Dio. of Pittsburgh? Beyond the pretty much standard liberal Episcopalians trying to lay claim to ownership of a conservative Diocese….
It is my understanding that the leaders of the Pittsburgh Anglican Diocese who drafted the statement had done so in the hope that it would be issued jointly by both the TEC and ACNA dioceses. Apparently TEC declined the opportunity.
After all, this statement right here would obviously be false if they had signed it: “- that anticipated settlements would not seek to damage the health and future of one another’s ministries.”
We all see out here that the TECusa diocesan leadership is working as hard as they can to “damage the health and future” of the Anglican Diocese.
It’s good to recognize what kind of people they are, so that conservatives — both in TEC and out of TEC — can stay as far far away from them as possible.
My take is that the Anglican Diocese realizes that further litigation is most likely going nowhere. The unfortunate Stipulation has prematurely ended the legal battle without a chance for the courts to address the validity of the realignment vote by diocesan convention. This should be really good news for TEC as it will result in a financial windfall. Each parish will be forced to cough up a substantial ransom for keeping their property. And TEC will certainly want to keep a few properties, in those parishes where small minorities wished to stay in TEC- and now they should have the cash to prop up these parishes. TEC is in the drivers seat. The true colors of TEC Pittsburgh will come out- will there be vengeance or something else?
One impediment to the kind of resolution the ACNA folks are hoping for is that, usually, by the time conflict gets to the point where they have been, one or other party is in “total annihilation” mode – as in wanting to inflict this on the other. I suspect that is where TEC is and will be for some time. However, with God, all things are possible. Prayers.
I so wish we could all model our behavior to this. I find myself being angry and having vindictive thoughts as I think of how TEC is dragging us through all these lawsuits with no end in sight for years to come.
#10- yes, I must concede the first two settlements were revealing: the shameful disaffiliation for St. Phillips and the grasp for the last wax droppings from the altar at Somerset- but they have a chance to do better… let’s face it, they are already doing better than places like Western New York, where the Church of the Good Shepherd is now an Islamic center. They’ve made their attempt to remove the two largest parishes from the Anglican diocese- thankfully St. Stephen’s was Anglican enough to reject the deal St. Phillip’s took. They know they can get huge amounts of cash, will that be enough?
Well, as David will attest (since he was there too), the tone of this missive comports with Geoff Chapman’s comments at the all-parish meeting at Ascension on February 20. He certainly described the negotiations with the TEC Diocese in positive terms. I would assume that the rector of St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, isn’t in the habit of saying what he doesn’t mean.
Sorry, but as much as I would like to see our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh succeed, I am quite sure that TEC in the person of their Presiding ‘Bishop’ will throw a wrench into the works by refusing to come to any agreement which in any way would benefit anyone but them. And Sarah, you’re quite right: TEC’s leaders cannot be trusted, and their PB is doing her best to ruin the ACNA. Not succeeding, though.
Well, with all these comments about “total annihilation” and “vengeance” let’s not forget that it was the leaders of what is now the Anglican Diocese that attempted to eliminate the ministry of the Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. They are now having to deal with the consequence that the method they chose was canonically and legally dubious at best.
It is nice to see that they are now willing to recognize the loyal Episcopalians “as seeking to be faithful to their Christian call as they perceive it, and to their conscience.” Such did not always seem the case, both before and after the re-alignment.
Maybe you all see out there that “the TECusa diocesan leadership is working as hard as they can to ‘damage the health and future’ of the Anglican Diocese,” but from “in here” the picture is different. It seems clear that they are trying to uphold their obligations to protect the welfare of the Episcopal Church, but in a way that minimizes to the extent possible the damage to the mission of those parishes that have left. That they are not going to make the leaders of the ACNA Diocese entirely happy with the results does not therefore mean that they are being vindictive.
Per David’s comment in #3, as a member of the Standing Committee of the TEC diocese I would simply note that I hadn’t seen this statement until it was published here. It may have been the intention of the drafters of the statement that it be “issued jointly,” but I anyway wasn’t aware of any effort to make that happen.
That said, this is a thoughtful and gracious statement. Although there obviously would have needed to have been a collaboration in wordsmithing for any kind of common statement to have been possible, I certainly would have been strongly supportive of making it happen. It’s not a given that the leadership on the TEC side would have been able to find a common platform with the leadership on the Anglican side for such a statement, but it’s not in any event fair to imply that such a common platform was rejected.
I note, in the context of Bill’s note in #14, that in the past words have been spoken on both sides of the divide, and things have been done, that don’t truly reflect who we might be at our best. It is also doubtless the case that we remain broken and sinful people, and that words will be spoken and things will be done in the future that will not be under the guidance of our better angels. But I think it clear both from this statement and from the recent communications from Bishop Price that both groups are trying to muddle their way to a better place. That effort should have our encouragement and our prayers.
RE: “let’s not forget that it was the leaders of what is now the Anglican Diocese that attempted to eliminate the ministry of the Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. . . . ”
Right — because actually *leaving* means, apparently, utter devastation to those remaining? How pathetic.
RE: “but in a way that minimizes to the extent possible the damage to the mission of those parishes that have left. . . . ”
Right — by forcing departing parishes not to align with your competition — ACNA. Sweet.
Nice to see how terrified you all are of ACNA — so much so that you have to forbid departing parishes from joining ACNA in your settlements.
Yeh — we all see what kind of leaders the faux TEC diocese has. Angry. Spiteful. And fearful of the competition.
RE: “But I think it clear both from this statement and from the recent communications from Bishop Price that both groups are trying to muddle their way to a better place.”
Actually, the words of Bishop Price make precisely the opposite “clear.”
This weekend at a non-church function, I had the chance to meet someone from St Phillip’s. It was an encouraging and delightful conversation, where we talked about missions in which she and I know people who are directly involved, one in Rwanda, one more local. (I’m Episcopalian.) I believe here in the Pittsburgh area, our focus is being restored. Rather than slinging negativity and being spiteful, I believe we are called to be better followers of Christ.
I am a “small part” of the leadership of the TEC Diocese. We are a diverse bunch, and no one voice speaks for everybody, no question. But for me, and speaking only for myself (though I know there are many others who would agree with me in whole or in part): I profoundly regret the division that has led to the creation of the Anglican Diocese and the ACNA.
I believe the conditions that brought that division about were the result of failures on all sides, and that all bear responsibility for what has taken place. The Episcopal Church, like every Church, but with our own particularities in this era, for sure, absolutely is called to repentence, reform, renewal. But I don’t now and never did view that as a situation that necessarily required division. There were other options.
For a long time a great many great Christian leaders saw this diocese as a place from which that spirit of reform and renewal could be led, “from within,” generationally. And many great folks still remain, with that same vision. I wish we could have remained together in this.
But that doesn’t mean I “blame” the folks who departed. The Episcopal Church brought much of this on itself, on ourselves, by avoiding the invitation from the wider Communion to practice a season of restraint in decisions based on theological views that are not widely shared in the Communion, and by choosing to interpret our own canons strictly rather than generously and by refusing to provide any structural accomodations for those who were most distressed. People did feel that they were “between a rock and a hard place.” I understand.
But all that is water over the dam. Both sides need to let all that go, for now. We are where we are.
I am absolutely not happy with many of the words and actions of the Episcopal Church and of many in our diocese since the division, and wish we had spoken and acted differently. I am as well absolutely not happy with the words and actions of many in the Anglican Diocese and congregations in and following the division. There is no real justification for finger-pointing, though I guess it’s understandable that we’ve all done some of that.
I am encouraged by a shift in tone that seems to have entered into the stream of communication on both sides, and I believe on both sides that the motives for this change are wholesome.
All that said, while after some prayerful discernment of my own call I have determined to remain within TEC, I wish nothing but blessing upon my brothers and sisters now in ACNA and the Anglican Diocese. I am my best to continue constructive and faithful and respectful friendships and a collaborative life and ministry with them. I believe that despite the hurt of the past few years, we are all called now to a spirit of generosity and kindness.
I understand, and we all simply need to understand, that the division of our diocese here in Pittsburgh had legal consequences related in part to the agreements made in the 2005 settlement of the lawsuit brought by Calvary against the diocese. And I like all officers of the Episcopal Diocese accept my fiduciary responsibility. I must act in ways that support the best interest of the Episcopal Diocese–as I understand them. There can of course be differences of opinion about what constitutes “best interest.”
I personally believe that the best interest of our Episcopal Diocese will be served if there is a general understanding and agreement among Episcopalians, Anglicans, and the wider community that we have all worked together to find reasonable and fair solutions to the problems that the division has given rise to.
It’s going to be imperfect, but at the end of the day we’re going to need to find good solutions, or we will pay a heavy spiritual price, and our foundation for meaningful gospel-centered ministry will be impaired for many years to come. If we’re going to be faithful to our call to witness we can afford neither a mean and vindictive spirit nor a resentful and bitter spirit. Who would or should listen to Good News in that context?
And I think we’ll all just have to begin to do this ourselves, without insisting that the other guy go first. As best we can. They’ll know we are Christians by our faithfulness in acknowledging and lifting up Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and by our love. If we fail in that, it doesn’t matter who gets the buildings.
RE: “But I don’t now and never did view that as a situation that necessarily required division.”
I agree that it didn’t require division by everyone in TEC, for after all, I’m in TEC, while acknowledging that the vast majority of the current national leadership of TEC do not believe or promote the Gospel.
But I do think that it was necessary that some leave TEC, for their own conscience’s sake. They did not believe that it was right to be in something as corrupt and grotesque as what is now the organization of TEC.
[blockquote]But I do think that it was necessary that some leave TEC, for their own conscience’s sake.[/blockquote]
I agree that this was so, and I have nothing but respect for those who as a matter of conscience felt that leaving the Episcopal Church was what they needed to do. I see their continued good ministry all around here in Pittsburgh, and I believe that in ways that we can’t perhaps quite understand at the moment they and we all will have roles to play in a renewal of Anglicanism in coming decades.
This is well-put. I am glad that people from the Anglican Diocese are saying this.
what is the current situation in Dio. of Pittsburgh? Beyond the pretty much standard liberal Episcopalians trying to lay claim to ownership of a conservative Diocese….
It is my understanding that the leaders of the Pittsburgh Anglican Diocese who drafted the statement had done so in the hope that it would be issued jointly by both the TEC and ACNA dioceses. Apparently TEC declined the opportunity.
Not surprising, David Wilson.
After all, this statement right here would obviously be false if they had signed it: “- that anticipated settlements would not seek to damage the health and future of one another’s ministries.”
We all see out here that the TECusa diocesan leadership is working as hard as they can to “damage the health and future” of the Anglican Diocese.
It’s good to recognize what kind of people they are, so that conservatives — both in TEC and out of TEC — can stay as far far away from them as possible.
My take is that the Anglican Diocese realizes that further litigation is most likely going nowhere. The unfortunate Stipulation has prematurely ended the legal battle without a chance for the courts to address the validity of the realignment vote by diocesan convention. This should be really good news for TEC as it will result in a financial windfall. Each parish will be forced to cough up a substantial ransom for keeping their property. And TEC will certainly want to keep a few properties, in those parishes where small minorities wished to stay in TEC- and now they should have the cash to prop up these parishes. TEC is in the drivers seat. The true colors of TEC Pittsburgh will come out- will there be vengeance or something else?
One impediment to the kind of resolution the ACNA folks are hoping for is that, usually, by the time conflict gets to the point where they have been, one or other party is in “total annihilation” mode – as in wanting to inflict this on the other. I suspect that is where TEC is and will be for some time. However, with God, all things are possible. Prayers.
I so wish we could all model our behavior to this. I find myself being angry and having vindictive thoughts as I think of how TEC is dragging us through all these lawsuits with no end in sight for years to come.
“Mutual Blessing and Release:….”
Should one ‘bless’ the beliefs and behavior of persons professing/acting out heresy?
Looks great. Thanks.
“The true colors of TEC Pittsburgh will come out” – they have already been on display through two “settlements.
#10- yes, I must concede the first two settlements were revealing: the shameful disaffiliation for St. Phillips and the grasp for the last wax droppings from the altar at Somerset- but they have a chance to do better… let’s face it, they are already doing better than places like Western New York, where the Church of the Good Shepherd is now an Islamic center. They’ve made their attempt to remove the two largest parishes from the Anglican diocese- thankfully St. Stephen’s was Anglican enough to reject the deal St. Phillip’s took. They know they can get huge amounts of cash, will that be enough?
Well, as David will attest (since he was there too), the tone of this missive comports with Geoff Chapman’s comments at the all-parish meeting at Ascension on February 20. He certainly described the negotiations with the TEC Diocese in positive terms. I would assume that the rector of St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, isn’t in the habit of saying what he doesn’t mean.
Sorry, but as much as I would like to see our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh succeed, I am quite sure that TEC in the person of their Presiding ‘Bishop’ will throw a wrench into the works by refusing to come to any agreement which in any way would benefit anyone but them. And Sarah, you’re quite right: TEC’s leaders cannot be trusted, and their PB is doing her best to ruin the ACNA. Not succeeding, though.
Well, with all these comments about “total annihilation” and “vengeance” let’s not forget that it was the leaders of what is now the Anglican Diocese that attempted to eliminate the ministry of the Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. They are now having to deal with the consequence that the method they chose was canonically and legally dubious at best.
It is nice to see that they are now willing to recognize the loyal Episcopalians “as seeking to be faithful to their Christian call as they perceive it, and to their conscience.” Such did not always seem the case, both before and after the re-alignment.
Maybe you all see out there that “the TECusa diocesan leadership is working as hard as they can to ‘damage the health and future’ of the Anglican Diocese,” but from “in here” the picture is different. It seems clear that they are trying to uphold their obligations to protect the welfare of the Episcopal Church, but in a way that minimizes to the extent possible the damage to the mission of those parishes that have left. That they are not going to make the leaders of the ACNA Diocese entirely happy with the results does not therefore mean that they are being vindictive.
Per David’s comment in #3, as a member of the Standing Committee of the TEC diocese I would simply note that I hadn’t seen this statement until it was published here. It may have been the intention of the drafters of the statement that it be “issued jointly,” but I anyway wasn’t aware of any effort to make that happen.
That said, this is a thoughtful and gracious statement. Although there obviously would have needed to have been a collaboration in wordsmithing for any kind of common statement to have been possible, I certainly would have been strongly supportive of making it happen. It’s not a given that the leadership on the TEC side would have been able to find a common platform with the leadership on the Anglican side for such a statement, but it’s not in any event fair to imply that such a common platform was rejected.
I note, in the context of Bill’s note in #14, that in the past words have been spoken on both sides of the divide, and things have been done, that don’t truly reflect who we might be at our best. It is also doubtless the case that we remain broken and sinful people, and that words will be spoken and things will be done in the future that will not be under the guidance of our better angels. But I think it clear both from this statement and from the recent communications from Bishop Price that both groups are trying to muddle their way to a better place. That effort should have our encouragement and our prayers.
Bruce Robison
RE: “let’s not forget that it was the leaders of what is now the Anglican Diocese that attempted to eliminate the ministry of the Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. . . . ”
Right — because actually *leaving* means, apparently, utter devastation to those remaining? How pathetic.
RE: “but in a way that minimizes to the extent possible the damage to the mission of those parishes that have left. . . . ”
Right — by forcing departing parishes not to align with your competition — ACNA. Sweet.
Nice to see how terrified you all are of ACNA — so much so that you have to forbid departing parishes from joining ACNA in your settlements.
Yeh — we all see what kind of leaders the faux TEC diocese has. Angry. Spiteful. And fearful of the competition.
RE: “But I think it clear both from this statement and from the recent communications from Bishop Price that both groups are trying to muddle their way to a better place.”
Actually, the words of Bishop Price make precisely the opposite “clear.”
This weekend at a non-church function, I had the chance to meet someone from St Phillip’s. It was an encouraging and delightful conversation, where we talked about missions in which she and I know people who are directly involved, one in Rwanda, one more local. (I’m Episcopalian.) I believe here in the Pittsburgh area, our focus is being restored. Rather than slinging negativity and being spiteful, I believe we are called to be better followers of Christ.
RE: “Rather than slinging negativity and being spiteful, I believe we are called to be better followers of Christ.”
That would be great. So when do you think the settlements will be modified to allow the departing Anglican parishes to join ACNA, among other changes?
I am a “small part” of the leadership of the TEC Diocese. We are a diverse bunch, and no one voice speaks for everybody, no question. But for me, and speaking only for myself (though I know there are many others who would agree with me in whole or in part): I profoundly regret the division that has led to the creation of the Anglican Diocese and the ACNA.
I believe the conditions that brought that division about were the result of failures on all sides, and that all bear responsibility for what has taken place. The Episcopal Church, like every Church, but with our own particularities in this era, for sure, absolutely is called to repentence, reform, renewal. But I don’t now and never did view that as a situation that necessarily required division. There were other options.
For a long time a great many great Christian leaders saw this diocese as a place from which that spirit of reform and renewal could be led, “from within,” generationally. And many great folks still remain, with that same vision. I wish we could have remained together in this.
But that doesn’t mean I “blame” the folks who departed. The Episcopal Church brought much of this on itself, on ourselves, by avoiding the invitation from the wider Communion to practice a season of restraint in decisions based on theological views that are not widely shared in the Communion, and by choosing to interpret our own canons strictly rather than generously and by refusing to provide any structural accomodations for those who were most distressed. People did feel that they were “between a rock and a hard place.” I understand.
But all that is water over the dam. Both sides need to let all that go, for now. We are where we are.
I am absolutely not happy with many of the words and actions of the Episcopal Church and of many in our diocese since the division, and wish we had spoken and acted differently. I am as well absolutely not happy with the words and actions of many in the Anglican Diocese and congregations in and following the division. There is no real justification for finger-pointing, though I guess it’s understandable that we’ve all done some of that.
I am encouraged by a shift in tone that seems to have entered into the stream of communication on both sides, and I believe on both sides that the motives for this change are wholesome.
All that said, while after some prayerful discernment of my own call I have determined to remain within TEC, I wish nothing but blessing upon my brothers and sisters now in ACNA and the Anglican Diocese. I am my best to continue constructive and faithful and respectful friendships and a collaborative life and ministry with them. I believe that despite the hurt of the past few years, we are all called now to a spirit of generosity and kindness.
I understand, and we all simply need to understand, that the division of our diocese here in Pittsburgh had legal consequences related in part to the agreements made in the 2005 settlement of the lawsuit brought by Calvary against the diocese. And I like all officers of the Episcopal Diocese accept my fiduciary responsibility. I must act in ways that support the best interest of the Episcopal Diocese–as I understand them. There can of course be differences of opinion about what constitutes “best interest.”
I personally believe that the best interest of our Episcopal Diocese will be served if there is a general understanding and agreement among Episcopalians, Anglicans, and the wider community that we have all worked together to find reasonable and fair solutions to the problems that the division has given rise to.
It’s going to be imperfect, but at the end of the day we’re going to need to find good solutions, or we will pay a heavy spiritual price, and our foundation for meaningful gospel-centered ministry will be impaired for many years to come. If we’re going to be faithful to our call to witness we can afford neither a mean and vindictive spirit nor a resentful and bitter spirit. Who would or should listen to Good News in that context?
And I think we’ll all just have to begin to do this ourselves, without insisting that the other guy go first. As best we can. They’ll know we are Christians by our faithfulness in acknowledging and lifting up Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and by our love. If we fail in that, it doesn’t matter who gets the buildings.
Bruce Robison
RE: “But I don’t now and never did view that as a situation that necessarily required division.”
I agree that it didn’t require division by everyone in TEC, for after all, I’m in TEC, while acknowledging that the vast majority of the current national leadership of TEC do not believe or promote the Gospel.
But I do think that it was necessary that some leave TEC, for their own conscience’s sake. They did not believe that it was right to be in something as corrupt and grotesque as what is now the organization of TEC.
Sarah,
[blockquote]But I do think that it was necessary that some leave TEC, for their own conscience’s sake.[/blockquote]
I agree that this was so, and I have nothing but respect for those who as a matter of conscience felt that leaving the Episcopal Church was what they needed to do. I see their continued good ministry all around here in Pittsburgh, and I believe that in ways that we can’t perhaps quite understand at the moment they and we all will have roles to play in a renewal of Anglicanism in coming decades.
Bruce Robison