In short, the letter’s signers have rejected Bishop Duncan’s rather unAnglican insistence upon uniformity and embraced instead a commitment to unity. Therefore, had I written the Post-Gazette article, it would have been entitled “Letter signals rapprochement between conservative and progressive Episcopalians.” Why? Because those who have taken this bold step should not to be understood as merely having been
cut off from fellow conservatives, but as having allied (dare we say “aligned”?) with those who may not share all their theological views, but who do share their commitment to remain within The Episcopal Church. And for this we give thanks.
In life, most us get at least one endorsement that we neither desire nor solicit. I wonder if Dr. Lewis will be so convinced of rapprochement between liberals and communion conservatives after the first convention of the continuing diocese. He may be in for a rude awakening (as, I fear, will they).
Just as with the letter from the Pittsburgh laity highlighted a few days ago, neither “side” is really getting the Pittsburgh Twelve. Their vision of Anglican comprehensiveness is poles apart from that of Harold. At the same time, for most of them it’s about stewardship in far more than a material sense and it’s also about catholic ecclesiology.
I wonder if the Pittsburgh 12 are as sympathic towards Calvary’s lawsuit against Bishop Duncan as Dr. Lewis is sympathetic about their letter to Bishop Duncan.
I’m delighted Bishop-self-appointed Lewis is delighted. But I wonder how the twelve believed that they could somehow separate themselves from his inclusive embrace. They now find themselves welcomed by a man who at every public diocesan meeting where Bishop Duncan and Bishop-self-appointed Lewis were present took the occasion to describe either the Bishop as a liar or those allied with Duncan as homophobes and bigots on the order of the KKK and the Nazis. The latter pronouncement came during a speech he delivered at a session of Diocesan Convention held in the Cathedral several years ago. Bishop-self-appointed Lewis will, I fear, treat the twelve and their principles not much better. But who knows – maybe the Age of Aquarius will finally descend on the non-realigned Diocese of Pittsburgh of the institution once known as ECUSA.
To be strictly accurate (which didn’t make it any less heinous an analogy, in my opinion) in the debate referenced by Dan, Lewis compared a resolution praising female ordination that had been amended to recognize the legitimacy of the Anglo Catholic point of view to requiring the NAACP to include a clause in their constitution recognizing the right of conscience of members of the KKK.
These are the bedfellows the 12 deserve. It is amazing to me just what folks in safe dioceses think is happening outside themselves. The problem is that they really do not know and in a sense have been hiding behind someone’s cassock. But everyone is now waking up!
As my mom always said (and you can nver go wrong quoting mom), “you are known by the company you keep.” The Pittsburgh Twelve will have hard time distancing themselves from Dr. Lewis, PEP and the Presiding Oceanographer.
Who said life was going to be “easy” for any of us in the next few years, David? We’re all going to have different obstacles to overcome.
Francis, #5, while I am in agreement with Bishop Duncan that the time for our diocese to leave is now, I also have an understanding that different people are called to different places. Knowing a number of the “Pittsurgh 12” I can say that I completely disagree with the reasons some of them have for staying. Some of them have very valid reasons for staying (at least one knows that the parish he is serving will never survive a split regardless of how much he himself would like to leave and so he stays, in faithfulness to God and to those he has been called to shepherd by God), as well as a call to stay in TEC for the time being. Are some of them blind to what’s happening, I would say yes, but some of them are extremely aware of what is going on and just how hard it will be. We need to pray for those parishes which decide to stay, that God will work mightily through them.
Now was their letter actually a helpful thing in the current situation, I personally don’t think it was, in fact it probably did damage to God’s Church in the long run, but it is done and we need to work forward from that point.
Let me reafirm once again that I strongly stand in support of Bishop Duncan. The claims of some that he is “Bishop Duncan the Lion Hearted, I think, are very true. May God richly bless him for his faithfulness to God’s Kindom.
P.S. I praise God daily that none of us are actully at work here and that it is truly all by God’s power that we actually accomplish anything because I know that I am powerless and it is only by God working in me that I can do anything at all. Praise God, Praise God.
Actually I think there are many more rectors in Pittsburgh who will find themselves with two churches, neither of which can survive. For some reason they have not joined with the “12”.
The letter of the “12” actually gave hope to many lay folk who felt that they were being “abandoned” by their rector and Bishop. Glad to see that the Lord keeps His church together no matter what man may do to split it (I speak of both sides here)
In my view the only viable future for an orthodox beleiver in the Diocese of Pittsburgh is to support and embrace re-alignment as a whole diocese. The 2009 and 2012 GC will make staying in TEC legally airtight. They will close every conceivable loophole that now exists for leaving. Property Canons, disciplinary canons, canons exerting the independence of standing committees and dioceses will all be revised. Loyalty oaths by both clergy and lay people will be required for any elected or appointed position and for ordination and deployment.
It breaks my heart theat the Pittsburgh Twelve don’t seem to understand it is now or never.
Eugene wrote:
“The letter of the “12†actually gave hope to many lay folk who felt that they were being “abandoned†by their rector and Bishop.”
So, you didn’t feel abandoned when your Presiding Bishop stated that Jesus is not the only way to the Father? Is that what you have been taught all you life? Do you change your theology according to what she says? Or can you live with a leader who is not adhering to the Bible?
Not surprisingly, I hold a different view from #10. I didn’t vote for realignment for the benefit of Pittsburghers so much as in solidarity with those orthodox in other jurisdictions who do not enjoy orthodox leadership (and to whom we cannot otherwise extend support). I don’t know how the Pittsburgh Twelve will fare after November, but then neither do the rest of us. I suspect our view of their ultimate success or failure will be refracted through the lens of our reasons for realigning in the first place.
#11
Sorry but the head of the Church is Christ, NOT the PB. Of course I grieve when the PB says things that are not, shall I say “orthodox”.
You seem to have missed my point however: there are many churches that will split if the Pittsburgh diocese leaves TEC. Then there will not be enough people to support them. The “orthodox” rector leaves with his portion and the rest are left behind to fend for themselves. The “orthodox” rector will eventually look for greener pastures and then there will be two congregations without a shepherd.
In my opinion the Bishop of Pittsburgh should not abandon his flock. I trust that the vote will be to stay and that the Bishop will stay. But I fear that his mind is already made up to leave, regardless of what the vote may be.
All I am trying to say is that it is not so obvious to many of us (who support the Bishop of Pitt. theologically) that the way to procede is to leave TEC and not worry about what that does to congregations that are not 100% “orthodox”.
[blockquote]Not surprisingly, I hold a different view from #10. I didn’t vote for realignment for the benefit of Pittsburghers so much as in solidarity with those orthodox in other jurisdictions who do not enjoy orthodox leadership (and to whom we cannot otherwise extend support).[/blockquote]
Mr. Bonner, with all due respect (and I really do mean that), I can speak as one who is now in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and was formally in a thoroughly revisionist Diocese (CT). The only hope I see for orthodox parishes in revisionist dioceses is realignment. My only wish is that all the eleven dioceses who had originally requested Alternative Primatial Oversight after General Convention 2006 had taken the steps now being taken by the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh when their request was not honored. Bishops who are tied to TEC’s polity can do absolutely nothing to come to the aid of parishes who are stuck behind the iron curtain of revisionist dioceses. That is why so many of them have found it necessary to look for help from CANA or AMIA, Kenya, Uganda, Bolivia, etc. Orthodox bishops within TEC have enough to do with protecting their own dioceses from encroachment. Witness the recent situation in the Diocese of South Carolina where likely the last orthodox bishop ever was narrowly approved after being elected twice. They certainly cannot cross borders to assist besieged parishes in hostile dioceses.
I remember the hope that arose within my own parish when something like ten ECUSA bishops released a statement after Bishop Andrew Smith’s takeover of our property that if there was not a quick presentment and discipline against Smith they would act themselves. The CT Six presentment took two years to get absolutely nowhere–being summarily dismissed by 815. Sadly, we never heard from those ten bishops again. Five of the six CT Six parishes are now with bishops outside TEC.
I should add that a Google turned up the names of those actually thirteen bishops include Bishops Duncan and Scriven of Pittsburgh, Bishop Ackerman, Iker, Schofield, Fairfield, Bena and Herzog. All have either left or in the process of leaving TEC.
The inside track failed.
Eugene: “In my opinion the Bishop of Pittsburgh should not abandon his flock. I trust that the vote will be to stay and that the Bishop will stay. But I fear that his mind is already made up to leave, regardless of what the vote may be.”
While you may think that Bishop Duncan is simply “abandoning his flock,” he had been trying for years to keep the diocese together. It was only after the years of trying and the consistently progressive moves by the national church that he came to agree with the many parishes that were pressuring him (and yes, several parishes were pressuring him to lead the diocese in re-aligning for years) that the only way to move forward in God’s will was to re-align to a part of the Anglican Communion that was actually faithful to the faith once received.
The fact that people feel that their bishop and priests are “abandoning them”(#9) is unfortunately simply an effect of not being told what is actually happening and why it is important. An example of this is a friend at college who was more on the liberal side of things and from a liberal diocese who in Spring of 2005 told me that all the stir caused by (at least in her mind “just†cause by) Robinson’s election had died down and nothing else would happen with it. This is only one example of how little the laity has not been informed by their leadership. Unfortunately, while much better in Pittsburgh, it is still a major problem here. I can say that in my current parish, it was not until after the Nov. vote that the rector and vestry decided it was finally time to actually inform the rest of the congregation what was going on. In my opinion a little late for the leadership to finally talk honestly about what is going on.
While I feel Eugene’s pain, and acknowledge the very real risks he cites, there is another more helpful way to characterize the situation: The bishop and his team of shepherds are not “abandoning” the flock, but simply moving the flock to safer and greener pastures. The only sheep at risk are those that refuse to be shepherded.
We might also acknowledge that just as some parishes may split if the Dio realigns, there is as much risk that they’ll split (or just drain away) if the Dio doesn’t realign.
Dr. Witt (#14),
You make my point precisely (and I took your comment as respectful.) It was the Connecticut parishes (and my friends in Butte who made the decision to disassociate from what had been the strongest parish in the Diocese of Montana in 2006) that tipped me over into voting “aye.”
My own preference would have been to retain the earlier changes to the diocesan constitution and canons that refuse conformity with those of TEC where they conflict with the teaching and tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, offer episcopal oversight to any outside parish that requested it, accept the inevitable lawsuits as they came, fight them as long as we could rely on free legal counsel (if our cause is God’s cause, indeed, why do we need to rely on paid legal counsel?) and await whatever result emerged. As it is, we now have a culture of legalism intertwined with a culture of principle, so that Bishop Duncan can talk about how we are “still†the Episcopal Church, knowing full well that once we have separated, there will be no reference to TEC in any founding document that we adopt. I have no problem with the idea of emphasizing ecclesial continuity, but I find it dispiriting also to see it used to protect title. It’s not the spirit of the new Church for which I had hoped.
I could not convince myself to support last year’s resolutions based on what was happening to us here in Pittsburgh. We’ve all been called on to do difficult things. Here at Trinity Cathedral, Bishop Duncan has asked us to try to keep his cathedra operational, even though it has an institutional plant far too big and draining for its current congregation. It would make much more sense for us – materially and spiritually – to get out and find a schoolhouse, but we’re still here, trying to do the job we were asked to do. So I repeat my vote was not really for or on behalf of Pittsburgh. It was on behalf of people like yourself and the members of Christ Church, Butte, who were called to witness in hostile territory and did not get the support from us that you could have done (at least in the way I describe above). When one member suffers, all suffer together.
As a historian, I find ecclesiastical strategizing a fascinating thing to study. As a Christian living through it, I confess I would be happier to see less of it, not because the other side are entitled to everything that they claim, but because in claiming our share we run the risk of claiming what is not our due or claiming it for the wrong reason.
I gather you’re speaking at Trinity in the near future and look forward to meeting you in person.