Here is one:
RESOLUTION ONE
New Canon I (All subsequent Canons to be Renumbered Accordingly) Provincial Membership within the Anglican Communion
The Diocese of Pittsburgh shall be a member of that Province of the Anglican Communion known as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
Resolution One is succinct and to the point.
It doesn’t have a lot of sugar coating and episcobabble.
Since we’re down to two delegates for 2008, I suspect I won’t be casting a vote this year (can’t decide if this is a good or a bad thing).
Two things strike me at first glance:
a. Alignment with the Southern Cone makes a certain amount of sense given our historic ties to the Diocese of Chile, but my own preference would be for the Province of the West Indies (yes I know they’re not offering, but surely it wouldn’t hurt to ask?).
b. Up to 24 months for discernment? That just seems like a recipe for chaos. I doubt if there are many parishes where they’re really uncertain about whether to stay or to go – the question is more about which group will stay in possession of the building if there’s a split.
I can’t escape the feeling that holding onto property to which we have a greater moral right than TEC (which I think we do) may actually be compromising the message. Nothing wrong with negotiating a settlement if you can, but wouldn’t it be a better witness to let the unjust take what they will soon be unable to maintain, if you can’t?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Two years seems long enough for a parish to determine which province it wishes to belong to and for the parish and diocese to negotiate property matters. The problem will come with the leadership of General Convention deciding to intervene with law suits. I wonder if Bishop Righter will be the General Convention interim bishop.
Perhaps in light of the “advisory” status of the TEC Constitution as a guide for order and discipline one might ask what will be done about this (Article VIII):
[blockquote]
… No person shall be ordained and consecrated Bishop, or ordered Priest or Deacon to minister in this Church, unless at the time, in the presence of the ordaining Bishop or Bishops, the person shall subscribe and make the following declaration:
[b]I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of The Episcopal Church.[/b]
[/blockquote]
Don’t forget [i]Numbers[/i] 30:2:
[blockquote]
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
[/blockquote]
stabill (#4)
Since we’ve spent the past five years maintaining that we are and continue to be “The Episcopal Church” in Pittsburgh, I imagine that it would be justified on that basis. It’s one of those assertions that is frustrating because it’s both true – in the sense that ACN dioceses represent continuity with the pre-1950 Episcopal Church far more than do their opponents – and also highly misleading.
The sparks are grinding off of Schori-Beer’s hatchet right now.
..”and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of The Episcopal Church”.
Note: This does not imply that one worships or obeys the Episcopal Church’s leaders when they are in gross, provable error. It does not enshrine General Convention as the Voice of God. It assumes that there is a received doctrine of this Church…and it is not the revisionism of sheep-scattering clerics!
Stabill,
So, then, should all the bishops and priests and deacons who have made changes to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them” resign or be deposed. That would cause a huge clergy shortage because I don’t see anything in what this Church “has received” that allows for blessing same sex unions or denying the uniqueness of Jesus or the physical reality of the Resurrection.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I seem to remember that a diocese in central America withdrew from TEC and then rejoined. Can anyone confirm this? If so then it proves that diocese have the right to take the steps that Pittsburgh are contemplating.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
What is the difference between “the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of The Episcopal Church” and the same in the Southern Cone?
Gee, they need two more years?!? Surely most have decided already!
I suspect a 2 year window is there to give those churches who may want to stay a chance to observe what happens at the 2009 General Convention.
What about the solemn promise to “continue in the apostles’ teaching?”
Of course, for us old timers, the ordination vow involed the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received. “The Episcopal Church” was never mentioned, certainly we did not promise to worship “The Episcopal Church,” as the current BCP has it.
I am also quite uncertain about a vow to something that is as changing and ephemeral as “the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church” seems to be. How can one rationally vow to conform to something about which nothing can be known because (a) it is ill-defined and (b) it will be different after the next General Convention. There is something more “knowable” about the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received at the time the vow is made.
(I have the same problem with a diocesan convention making an “unqualified accession” to The Episcopal Church. One can know what one is agreeing to at the moment, but not to what one has acceded down the road. And if one General Convention cannot bind future General Conventions, how can one diocesan convention bind future diocesan conventions by such an “unqualified accession.”)
Stabill #4 and all those who bring up the point about vows:
Unfortunately, this is exactly what the mindset of many, especially in the liberal movement, is. In college, I coordinated a mission trip and made a sound (this comes from the clergy person who was with us) but unpopular decision. Keep in mind that like most mission trips, all participants were required to sign things saying that they will listen to and obey what the leader says regardless of what it is. One of the people on the trip (a pretty liberal guy in general) blew up in response to my decision. After we got back to the states we had a conversation in which we talked about what happened and one of the comments he made was “just because I signed something doesn’t mean that I actually have to do it does it?”
This gives a sad look into how people often take vows these days. ‘Just because I promised before God that I would do something doesn’t meant that I should actually have to do it if I don’t agree with something.’