Jerry Bowyer thinks conservative Episcopalians in Pittsburgh are disobeying God by taking steps to leave the national Episcopal Church. Mr. Bowyer’s commentary last Sunday ( “The Pittsburgh Schism,” Forum) suffers from selective amnesia of certain facts salient to the position of the Diocese of Pittsburgh majority.
Mr. Bowyer misses the point repeatedly made by Bishop Robert Duncan. The Diocese of Pittsburgh is going nowhere. We are, have been and will remain a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, a church that is not hierarchical “all the way up.” Clergy do vow obedience to their bishop; bishops, however, make no such pledge to other bishops but instead are to be in free and affectionate communion with each other and their people. More than half of Anglican bishops worldwide have declared themselves to be in broken or impaired relationship with the Episcopal Church. It is the Episcopal Church, not the Diocese of Pittsburgh, that is schismatic.
In further accusing conservatives of litigiousness contrary to the biblical injunction against suing in the secular courts, Mr. Bowyer conveniently overlooks the reality that of the two contestants in any litigation, only one appears voluntarily. The Diocese of Pittsburgh, for instance, is involved in litigation over its property — brought, against its will, by one of its liberal member parishes. It is those initiating litigation, not conservative Episcopalians, who are disobeying the biblical commandment.
Mr. Bowyer would do well to inform himself more thoroughly concerning the merits before using his public persona to attempt to discredit a movement with which he says he largely agrees.REV. DR. DENNETT H. BUETTNER
Oakland
[blockquote]Mr. Bowyer would do well to inform himself more thoroughly concerning the merits before using his public persona to attempt to discredit a movement with which he says he largely agrees.[/blockquote]
Precisely. Good for you, Dr. Buettner. Would that other Dio Pgh folk speak up to this.
I am quite sure that TEC will set up a rival diocese.
With all respect, it is simply not the case that “Clergy do vow obedience to their bishop; bishops, however, make no such pledge to other bishops but instead are to be in free and affectionate communion with each other and their people.”
The English Prayer Books from 1549 down to today requires new bishops to “profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Archbishop and to the Metropolitical church of (Canterbury or York) and to their successors.” American Prayer Books from 1792 down to today have required an oath to “promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.”
It would never—[b]ever[/b]—have occurred to anybody until the current troubles that an individual bishop or diocese could define which particular doctrines, disciplines, and worship practices defined by General Convention were to be followed under canonical obedience and which were to be followed only when somebody “freely and affectionately” decided to do so. Someone who disagreed with General Convention’s take on these matters had only two choices: (1) he sucked it up and followed his oath to obey or (2) he resigned his church office if he could not conscientiously keep his promise. It was not regarded as remotely possible that a bishop could simply ignore his oath and carry on as if he, his congregation, or diocese were independent of the particular Anglican province that chose him.
Obviously, this is a free country and anybody can follow whatever theology of the church they choose to adopt, but they cannot honestly pretend that the last 450 years of Anglican history never happened, or that the ordination rites used during that time did not contain a vow of obedience.
I knew Dennett when he was first ordained and was serving with an international Anglican missionary society near Shelby, NC, as a deacon, and as part time assistant to me and later interim at Redeemer when I left that parish for Durham. I have great respect for his learning, wisdom, and comittment to our Lord Jesus. His letter confirms me in my respect for him.
Tom Rightmyer, now retired in Asheville, NC.
Dale, per page 513 of the ’79 BCP, both “Protestant’ and ‘in the United States’ are optional, not mandatory, to the promise. It is further defined in the examination as “Your heritage is the faith of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs.” To believe that this is some sort of swearing to the American church, not to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, is at best a total mischaracterization.
#1 – I know of at least three others from the Diocese of Pittsburgh who wrote “Letters to the Editor” in response to the Bowyer piece. So far only Dr Buettner’s letter has been published.
Faithfulness to the Church is not inherently or of necessity faithfulness to the General Convention Church. Not to the society in which Church finds itself. Faithfulness to the Church is faithfulness to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The real Anglican Way, Dale, is to resist the over-reach of politicized groups within the “church” and to stand with the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. See,
Anglican Church, History of, in any responsible history text. As the Church of Rome and Jerusalem hath erred, so hath the General Convention Church of the USA aka the PECUSA aka the ECUSA aka TEC of the USA.
What could be more Anglican than that statement and the correlative actions to correct it?
Per #2, there is no question but that when the realignment of the present Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh takes place, there will be simultaneously here in Southwestern Pennsylvania two diocese-like entities, one no longer under considering itself subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and so not recognized by the Episcopal Church, and one remaining under that jurisdiction, and so “recognized.”
Both of these entities will be in many ways “in continuity” with the present diocese, certainly in terms of our common life, memories, traditions, and sense of shared mission and ministry. Both will also be something “new.” The diocesan entity “no longer under the jurisdiction” will have the task of organizing itself in terms of its place in a wider jurisdictional context, the diocesan entity “remaining under the jurisdiction” will need to organize itself internally, as provided in the diocesan and national canons, filling “vacancies” on diocesan governing bodies, arranging for interim episcopal care, etc.. My guess is that about 2/3rds of our parishes and 3/4’s of our clergy will be in the realigned diocese, leaving about 20 parishes and 30-40 clergy in “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh under the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.” Members of our present diocesan Standing Committee, Diocesan Council, and other leadership bodies will be found in both groups. Many of the realigning parishes will also “leave behind” remnants of various sizes–some leaving to join other congregations, others gathering to continue distinctive congregational life. In any case, most of the clergy and congregations remaining within the Episcopal Church will of a generally conservative or moderate theological orientation. There are dear friends and many relationships of affection and mutual respect that will run across this divide, and much tenderness and good will. While lines of division may seem quite sharply drawn from the outside, internally we are very much a community of friends.
In any case, following the realignment, those who have realigned and those who remain under the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church will need to join in conversation, negotiation, and mediation to determine legal continuities of corporate identities and assets. Even if the courts of the Commonwealth are asked to help us unwind the complexities of a largely unprecedented situation, in terms of sorting out which bodies are legally related to the assets, liabilities, and obligations of the precedent diocesan entity, and as people of good will attempt to fulfill our spiritual, pastoral, and fiduciary responsibilities to the best of our abilities and in good conscience, I would anticipate (and pray for) little adversarial spirit. We’ll just need to figure out what’s right and do the best we can.
We are also likely to have some situations of clergy who wish to remain canonically with the Episcopal Church, but who would wish to serve in congregations that are associated with the realigned diocese, and there may also be some clergy who would associate with the realignment but wish to continue to minister in the remaining Episcopalian entity. It will be a little fuzzy for a while, and of course what will be possible is not yet known. I hope we are all hoping for the best, recognizing that there are good Christian people on both sides trying to discern a godly direction forward.
Bruce Robison
#7 – Good to know, Father. Let us hope that the Post-Gazette has the integrity to publish the others.
#9
Bruce,
Amen to all of the above. I like your notion that both successor bodies will take with them some of the existing diocesan “DNA.” There are too many shared stories – personal, parochial and, indeed, diocesan – to act as if two completely distinctive entities are being birthed.