From the diocese of Pittsburgh website:
Continuing work begun at their May retreat, members of the Board of Trustees, Diocesan Council and Standing Committee met on June 29 at St. Martin’s in Monroeville to talk again about the future direction of the diocese.
Bishop Robert Duncan thanked the diocesan leadership for the work they have done over the last month and a half to help the diocese begin to think through the choices it faces now that the national church has made it clear there will be no positive answer to the diocese’s request for Alternate Primatial Oversight or any return to mainstream Christianity. “I couldn’t be prouder of the leadership of the diocese. You have risen to help us figure this out,” he said.
Leaders shared information about events both inside and outside the diocese. Within the diocese, four of eight districts have held open meetings to discuss how the diocese should respond to these events. Those meetings were often very emotional, with comments ranging from clear calls to separate from the national Episcopal Church immediately, to expressions of deep anger and hurt at the leadership of the diocese for even considering such a move.
Some common themes are emerging. As one speaker said at the District II meeting on June 19, “The fundamental issue is always fidelity to Christ and his Gospel.” Another group of speakers clearly stated that “the fight isn’t worth it, but the mission is,” reported the leaders of District III. Many Pittsburgh Episcopalians continue to have questions about the basics of the discussion. In District IV, “A good number of people did not understand that the national church laid claim to all property and endowments,” reported its leaders. The meeting in District VII wanted the diocese to hear their pain and concern that anyone would even consider separation from the national church as a way forward. “Some very emotional people said some very emotional stuff,” reported one of its leaders.
Bishop Duncan encouraged those districts that had not yet met to schedule their meetings in the near future. “I am convinced that the sooner our people are dealing with this, thinking about this, praying about this, the better it will turn out,” he said. Bishop Duncan also reminded diocesan leaders of the path toward a decision. While it will ultimately be the diocesan convention that decides the course forward, any proposed resolutions setting that course need to be developed by the middle of August.
Here’s the rest of the story.
(h/t Anglicans United)
Note the relative transparency and honesty, as contrasted against TEC’s “All Is Wellâ„¢” slogan.
Whether you’re in a reasserting diocese like Pgh or a revisionist diocese like CT, schism is painful. Necessary and inevitable, given the situation, but painful nonetheless.
This is only anecdotal eveidence from a small sample, of course… still, it calls into question the position of Brian and others who continually assert that generations of faithful Episcopalians gave and continue to give to TEC, NOT to their local parish or diocese.
This is statement from the recent meeting in the Diocese of Pittsburgh…
“In District IV, ‘A good number of people did not understand that the national church laid claim to all property and endowments,’ reported its leaders. The meeting in District VII [b]wanted the diocese to hear their pain and concern that anyone would even consider separation from the national church as a way forward.[/b] “Some very emotional people said some very emotional stuff,’ reported one of its leaders.”
There are a lot of links to various documents casting TEC in a somewhat unfavorable light on the Diocese of Pittsburgh website, but where are the ones to the Geoffrey Chapman Memo, the Lillian Barfoot Memo, the Westfield’s Response document? +Duncan writes that is important that we “inform” our people and he provides the links to websites but where are the ones to these documents? Were District VII’s people informed of what diocesan leadership was doing or was the only way to find out to visit the court records of the Calvary lawsuit?
I quote from the “Full Text of the Request to the Global South Primates -The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh… ”
[b]Way Forward[/b]
1. Appoint a Primate who will discharge the constitutional and canonical duties historically assigned to the Presiding Bishop, offering alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral care until a permanent and constituent Anglican Communion entity is in place in the United States.
2. Permit orthodox U.S. bishops and others to assist with sharing in the burdens placed upon the Primate charged with alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral care on behalf of the Communion’s other Primates, by authorizing such delegations of authority and function as are deemed appropriate or possible.
3. Assemble the various Network and Windsor dioceses, and the Network and other Windsor-committed parishes in non-Network or non-Windsor dioceses, as well the congregations under foreign Anglican jurisdictions, in regular synods to prosecute ministry and mission in the period of transition before a permanent structure emerges.
4. Convene, when the time is right, an organizing (“constitutional”) convention for the purpose of approving the infrastructure necessary to the permanent Anglican entity in the U.S., and to choose the domestic leader for, and Anglican Communion representative of, that structure.”
Did the people of the diocese of Pittsburgh not know what +Duncan and his chancellor had done? This request to the steering committee and the additional secret Westfield’s Response to me are very clear as to +Duncan’s intentions. For those who have not been informed please review the attachments to the following Calvary filing:
http://prothonotary.county.allegheny.pa.us/WebMomCacheDir/vol436000000C0.pdf
Good to see that progressives are at other highly trafficked blogs still trying to get the word out about these docs. ; > )
But why not send them to our three Important Feature Articles on this very subject back in May! One of them has every document helpfully linked for all.
The Report of the HOB Task Force on Property Disputes
This one has all the docs neatly linked with titles:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2931/
See Greg Griffith’s interesting comment on “authorship” of the report:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2931/#50898
Matt Kennedy’s Analysis of It
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2935/
And of course . . . Jackie did a Terribly Important Story on the wicked request to the Global South Primates.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2562/
; > )
StandFirm always stands ready to help get the news out that progressives are desperate for others to know about!
Thank you Sarah for the weblinks. It is not simply that “anyone would even consider separation from the national church as
way forward. What they might not have known is that +Duncan and his chancellor were presenting it as
forward and, it was +Duncan, in accordance with the secret Westfield’s Response that would be the representative of the [edited out] signatories. One assumes for certain, +Schofield possible +Ackerman + Iker etc. Sarah, what input did the regular parishioners in the Diocese of Pittsburgh have into this? It was done in secret, it was the One way presented, Was +Duncan on the up and up with them? Was this done solely under the color purple? Off to ECW meeting….
EmilyH, the previous press release from Pittsburgh articulated four or five options for how the diocese could respond to the national church issues that confront us. But . . . I’m sure the HOB/D listserve and the other places you hang out didn’t call that to your attention?? ; > )
RE: “Sarah, what input did the regular parishioners in the Diocese of Pittsburgh have into this? It was done in secret, it was the One way presented, Was +Duncan on the up and up with them? Was this done solely under the color purple?”
LOL. What input did I have to any number of decisions that my diocese has made? What input did the parishioners of Dallas have to the Via Media minutes of their little board meeting have? What input do parishioners of various dioceses have to Standing Committee meetings, and various huddles of revisionist bishops [meeting prior to the HOB meeting, for instance], “in secret”. Answer: our vote for our bishop. But once the bishop is elected, as Bishop Bennison, Smith, and Chane have so marvelously proven . . . “it’s all over, baby” and you can kiss “input” goodbye!
And who cares? Your questions are all red herring questions signifying zilch, but hoping to seem ominous and portentious.
I’m sure that anything that is decided on by the Diocese of Pittsburgh will be decided at [drum roll] Diocesan Convention — and after that progressives can squawk about how the convention is not representative, just as we squawk about how the General Convention is not representative. ; > )
Chippers,
Sarah
Sarah, I am not addressing your input to your bishop or mine to mine. I am addressing a request made by a TEC bishop to the steering committee of the GS for alternative oversight. The nature of that request was to remove the diocese of Pittsburgh from the oversight and discipline of TEC, a discipline which he swore to uphold when he was consecrated. No, he had no obligation to tell either you or me his plans, but what about those who called him to be their bishop? When he suggested the options you reference, did he tell them that he had already chosen for them THE way forward and acted on his choice last November? Were they shocked by what he had done? It seems that there were many in District VII that were not very happy. Did the GS and other primates think that +Duncan had the full support of his diocese when he wrote his letter requesting their supervision?
More red herring and portentious questions — which is actually a common practice for EmilyH, since she is quoting from the revisionist sites she frequents and does not trouble to do much research on her own.
RE: ” No, he had no obligation to tell either you or me his plans, but what about those who called him to be their bishop?”
And as I pointed out — my bishop does not inform me and neither does yours you of all of his actions, secret meetings, minutes, etc etc. The parishioners of that diocese elected Bishop Duncan as their bishop and he’s behaving precisely as they expected of him — as is the bishop of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Springfield, Dallas, California, Minnesota and more.
RE: “When he suggested the options you reference, did he tell them that he had already chosen for them THE way forward and acted on his choice last November?”
I assume not — since he made a request as bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, which in no way impinges on the power of the elected Standing Committee, nor the Diocesan Convention to make their choices — as I am certain they will do so. Bishop Duncan has the right as a bishop to make the request he did, a request in fact which does NOT in any way “remove the diocese of Pittsburgh from the oversight and discipline of TEC” — and he did it. Good for him.
RE: “Were they shocked by what he had done?”
LOL — nope. But you and your progressive friends purport to be. Actually you hoped for much more, and were sadly deflated over the actual contents. Since then you have worked very hard to make it seem significant. And you were met by big yawns, and some chuckles in cyberspace. But maybe after six more months of offering these links in well-trafficed orthodox blogs, some sort of outrage will turn up! ; > )
RE: “Did the GS and other primates think that +Duncan had the full support of his diocese when he wrote his letter requesting their supervision?”
Heh. Somehow I suspect that the Primates are quite confident that Bishop Duncan has all the diocesan support he needs for decisions to be properly made and approved through the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Convention — as they will be, to the squeaks of disapproval from the few progressives in the diocese.
You know, you continue to ask self-important, portentious, inflated yet ultimately meaningless and pointless “questions” — which actually signify how shallow and small your actual knowledge of the situations within TEC and the diocese of Pittsburgh are.
Your questions reveal just how little you have, EmilyH, other than a progressive support for the revisionist activism of the national leadership of ECUSA — which is fine, of course, but since you start out with that support most of the aftermath of your remarks merely serves to reinforce your foundational worldview.
But as you have nothing more to offer — nearly zero foundation of facts or knowledge — I expect that you will continue to ask ultimately meaningless and trivial questions.
Reminds me of a trial lawyer interrogating a witness on the stand, when the trial lawyer knows “he got nothin'” to stand on.
“And so you say, Mr Tudball, that you were there on the night in question with a digital camera, actually filming the murder in question. . . . But . . . what was the actual name of your childhood pet?”
“And . . . when you were three years old, did you in fact cuff your little sister lightly on the shoulder?”
“I understand that the color of the old Buick that your parents drove was maroon? But . . . was your Mother shocked when your Father came home driving the maroon buick? It seems that your little sister recalls being quite unhappy over the color!”
And that’s exactly how you sound, EmilyH, to reasserters on this blog.
Too too rich. ; > )