She wrote, “Bishop Duncan continued to assert his unique theory of diocesan independence, reversing the generally accepted understanding of Episcopal Church polity.” It seems that Bishop Duncan’s “theory” is embraced by–at least–the ABC… And I’ve ben wondering for a long, long time just what, in fact, the Episcopal Church generally accepts, whether it be polity, theology, doctrine, etc.
[blockquote]Bishop Duncan continued to assert his unique theory of diocesan independence, reversing the generally accepted understanding of Episcopal Church polity.[/blockquote]
It does seem to align nicely with Canterbury’s “unique” view of things, however.
[blockquote] The step taken today by the Diocese of Pittsburgh will only lead to pain for all the people of the diocese, to increased litigation, and to charges being filed against Bishop Duncan under the disciplinary canons of the church. [/blockquote]
And who will be doing all of this litigating and charging? Surely not +Duncan, who seems quite willing to let “progressive” (interesting that the political term is employed, no?) parishes depart his diocese for TEC. Shouldn’t Ms. Gunderson be imploring, ala +Howe, the PB to refrain from causing this pain and anguish? Anyone want to place bets on her actually doing that?
#1:
This is the same theory that kept conservative parishes from walking out when they were under conservative bishops for years after GC2003. We heard over and over that we were tied to canterbury through our diocesan bishop, “there is no national church,” etc. etc.
samh (#3): yes, it is what has allowed me to rationalize continued affiliation with my “Windsor bishop” after the travesties that tec has visited upon us.
We had a flood in our parish last night (broken sewer line) and I was on the phone with a church insurance rep. In the midst of the conversation, I was asked the question “Who owns the church?” I paused and asked, “is that a trick question?” She laughed and said no. And then I said, “there are courts all over the country trying to help us answer that question as we speak.” She didn’t get it.
One useful byproduct of the fact that matters are now coming to a head in this conflict is that it is much easier now to find short statements that include all the fallacious “progressive” arguments in one place.
Does the progressive branch think the current strategy of “we’ll sue you and your vestry and anyone else we can think of” is really working? From what I can see the bigger their success in the courts, the greater the acceleration in the number of parishes and people leaving.
There is simply no incentive to remain. Imagine trying to run a capital campaign in a conservative parish in the last 5 years? Its not going to happen. No one is going to contribute to developing the property when they see what is happening all around them. The idea of evangelism has slowed – why would you want to bring someone into a church organization that holds beliefs so completely foreign to yours? Why would you start a mission church in that organization? They are frozen. The only way they can move forwards is to leave.
The progressives are winning the property battles, but there are going to be a lot less people standing with them once they are done. In ten years time people will look back and say the progressives lost the war. Every threat, every inhibition, every resolution saying “you must contribute the minimum”, every court case just results in more people leaving. Why would they want to stay?
[blockquote] Bishop Duncan defiantly rejected Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s request that he urge the convention to reject the resolution he has hitherto strongly supported. Rather that heed the presiding bishop’s advice, (*) Duncan denied a request from a deputy to declare the resolution out of order by virtue of its being beyond the power of the diocese to enact. [/blockquote]
Does anyone else sense a problem of logic here? Let us say that Bishop Duncan in fact agreed in a special discretionary act to set aside action on the constitutional change leading to coming out of TEC. That would by no means make it appropriate to vote for the proposition following the asterisk, that the Diocese of Pittsburgh would not have the power to take itself out of TEC. +Duncan’s refusal to declare this measure out of order in itself is only inappropriate if and when you take up the polity theory which TEC has recently been cobbling up.
And how does this compare with the defiance that Katharine and her predecessor showed to the rest of the Anglican Communion?
Bishop Duncan defiantly rejected Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s request that he urge the convention to reject the resolution he has hitherto strongly supported.
Joan Gundersen:
[blockquote]
The bishop then suggested that property currently held in common, including Trinity Cathedral and Calvary Camp, should, after a split, be administered for the benefit of all. It became clear, in other words, that he expects both to leave TEC and remain in control of its assets, which he would then generously offer to share with those he had dispossessed.
[/blockquote]
Would PEP be willing to make the same pledge: that if they remained in control of the assets, that they would generously offer to share with the others? If not, shame on them for criticizing +Duncan. If they are willing to pledge this, then this attitude seems like a way forward to a non-litigated settlement.
I would hope that KJS/DBB come to the conclusion that a mediated settlement is best in Pittsburgh. Deposing Duncan and suing for all the properties in the diocese would just get ungodly ugly. People simply need to get over their anger and disappointment and negotiate in a Christian fashion. Duncan will not force any reluctant parish to leave and I believe will negotiate fairly for all assets. A simple proposal would be to let each parish vote on which side they want to go. There are only a handful of parishes left where such a vote would even be close. Let each church go wherever they choose with their property. Divy up diocesan trusts etc. by percentage according to membership of each side after the vote, i.e., if 66% of members want to leave let them take 66% of assests. Separate in peace. Sadly I am skeptical that such an amicable split is possible. The minority in this diocese is very angry and looking for blood.
She wrote, “Bishop Duncan continued to assert his unique theory of diocesan independence, reversing the generally accepted understanding of Episcopal Church polity.” It seems that Bishop Duncan’s “theory” is embraced by–at least–the ABC… And I’ve ben wondering for a long, long time just what, in fact, the Episcopal Church generally accepts, whether it be polity, theology, doctrine, etc.
[blockquote]Bishop Duncan continued to assert his unique theory of diocesan independence, reversing the generally accepted understanding of Episcopal Church polity.[/blockquote]
It does seem to align nicely with Canterbury’s “unique” view of things, however.
[blockquote] The step taken today by the Diocese of Pittsburgh will only lead to pain for all the people of the diocese, to increased litigation, and to charges being filed against Bishop Duncan under the disciplinary canons of the church. [/blockquote]
And who will be doing all of this litigating and charging? Surely not +Duncan, who seems quite willing to let “progressive” (interesting that the political term is employed, no?) parishes depart his diocese for TEC. Shouldn’t Ms. Gunderson be imploring, ala +Howe, the PB to refrain from causing this pain and anguish? Anyone want to place bets on her actually doing that?
#1:
This is the same theory that kept conservative parishes from walking out when they were under conservative bishops for years after GC2003. We heard over and over that we were tied to canterbury through our diocesan bishop, “there is no national church,” etc. etc.
samh (#3): yes, it is what has allowed me to rationalize continued affiliation with my “Windsor bishop” after the travesties that tec has visited upon us.
We had a flood in our parish last night (broken sewer line) and I was on the phone with a church insurance rep. In the midst of the conversation, I was asked the question “Who owns the church?” I paused and asked, “is that a trick question?” She laughed and said no. And then I said, “there are courts all over the country trying to help us answer that question as we speak.” She didn’t get it.
One useful byproduct of the fact that matters are now coming to a head in this conflict is that it is much easier now to find short statements that include all the fallacious “progressive” arguments in one place.
Does the progressive branch think the current strategy of “we’ll sue you and your vestry and anyone else we can think of” is really working? From what I can see the bigger their success in the courts, the greater the acceleration in the number of parishes and people leaving.
There is simply no incentive to remain. Imagine trying to run a capital campaign in a conservative parish in the last 5 years? Its not going to happen. No one is going to contribute to developing the property when they see what is happening all around them. The idea of evangelism has slowed – why would you want to bring someone into a church organization that holds beliefs so completely foreign to yours? Why would you start a mission church in that organization? They are frozen. The only way they can move forwards is to leave.
The progressives are winning the property battles, but there are going to be a lot less people standing with them once they are done. In ten years time people will look back and say the progressives lost the war. Every threat, every inhibition, every resolution saying “you must contribute the minimum”, every court case just results in more people leaving. Why would they want to stay?
[blockquote] Bishop Duncan defiantly rejected Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s request that he urge the convention to reject the resolution he has hitherto strongly supported. Rather that heed the presiding bishop’s advice, (*) Duncan denied a request from a deputy to declare the resolution out of order by virtue of its being beyond the power of the diocese to enact. [/blockquote]
Does anyone else sense a problem of logic here? Let us say that Bishop Duncan in fact agreed in a special discretionary act to set aside action on the constitutional change leading to coming out of TEC. That would by no means make it appropriate to vote for the proposition following the asterisk, that the Diocese of Pittsburgh would not have the power to take itself out of TEC. +Duncan’s refusal to declare this measure out of order in itself is only inappropriate if and when you take up the polity theory which TEC has recently been cobbling up.
And how does this compare with the defiance that Katharine and her predecessor showed to the rest of the Anglican Communion?
Bishop Duncan defiantly rejected Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s request that he urge the convention to reject the resolution he has hitherto strongly supported.
Joan Gundersen:
[blockquote]
The bishop then suggested that property currently held in common, including Trinity Cathedral and Calvary Camp, should, after a split, be administered for the benefit of all. It became clear, in other words, that he expects both to leave TEC and remain in control of its assets, which he would then generously offer to share with those he had dispossessed.
[/blockquote]
Would PEP be willing to make the same pledge: that if they remained in control of the assets, that they would generously offer to share with the others? If not, shame on them for criticizing +Duncan. If they are willing to pledge this, then this attitude seems like a way forward to a non-litigated settlement.
I would hope that KJS/DBB come to the conclusion that a mediated settlement is best in Pittsburgh. Deposing Duncan and suing for all the properties in the diocese would just get ungodly ugly. People simply need to get over their anger and disappointment and negotiate in a Christian fashion. Duncan will not force any reluctant parish to leave and I believe will negotiate fairly for all assets. A simple proposal would be to let each parish vote on which side they want to go. There are only a handful of parishes left where such a vote would even be close. Let each church go wherever they choose with their property. Divy up diocesan trusts etc. by percentage according to membership of each side after the vote, i.e., if 66% of members want to leave let them take 66% of assests. Separate in peace. Sadly I am skeptical that such an amicable split is possible. The minority in this diocese is very angry and looking for blood.