On January 15th 2008, the Bishop was informed by the Presiding Bishop that he had been charged with abandonment of the communion. Up until this point no negotiations had happened between the diocese and the Presiding Bishop’s office. The group of rectors who would not realign met on January 18th (a meeting scheduled long before the charges were announced). Since the reason for delaying the statement was to enable negotiations and it was clear that those negotiations were not forthcoming, we decided to write a brief statement about our decision, and pray for the next week about issuing it. At the end of that week we agreed to issue the statement with the twelve signatures. Three members of the group met with the Bishop on January 28th to inform him of the statement after which it was mailed out to every parish on the 29th. Unfortunately, a member of the group sent the statement to the press without consulting the other eleven and so it was in the Pittsburgh papers the day after being sent.
It is not our desire to be disloyal to the diocesan leadership but rather to prayerfully follow where we believe the Lord is leading. Over the past several months Bishop Duncan has made it a priority to visit many parishes of the diocese and to present to the congregation (and often separately to the vestry) his reasons for advocating realignment. As far as I know, every rector who has signed the statement has welcomed the Bishop to make his presentation.
These are difficult times for the Diocese of Pittsburgh and it has been painful for many of us to be divided from colleagues with whom we have deep and abiding friendships. The group that signed the letter has attempted to be as forthright and transparent with the Diocesan leadership about where we are and what we are doing, and we hope to continue to do so in the future. Please keep all of us in prayer.
Jim’s analysis is quite spinful, “During that time we told the Bishop of our meetings, we told him who was in the group, what we believed it represented in Average Sunday Attendance and assessment giving. It was a significant group. Including those who were more progressive and had made their opposition previously known, it represented nearly a third of the diocesan membership.”
Consider that the so-called “one-third of the diocesan membership” is centered mainly in only four parishes, Trinity Cathedral, Calvary Church, St Paul’s Mt Lebanon and Christ Church North Hills and all except Calvary have significant conservative minorities, I would say Jim’s numbers are over inflated. I would also question the timing of this article. Why now and for what purpose Jim?
For another view from Pittsburgh, Click here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvoYZiEuT6Q
#1; David: I think some folk in Pittsburgh think that the letter from the 12 was a surprise to the Bishop. Jim’s post shows that it was not. It also shows that the Bishop asked them not to speak out before the first vote last November. I don’t think I saw that on he Bishop’s blog!
Another view from the Pittsburgh folk: I don’t think these guys like Jim!
http://episcopaliansforrealignment.blogspot.com/
My understanding is that Jim Simons is both conservative and quite strategic, and that his experience is made up in part of years of General Convention work in the trenches with the conservative minority. I suspect that, as such, the revisionists at 815 loathe and fear his work.
As such, I am thankful for this informative piece and until I’m given good reason not to trust him [i][and such reason for me does not consist of “he didn’t leave TEC”] [/i] , I will.
Sarah: Conservative and strategic has been my understanding of Jim too, having attended 6 general conventions myself and serving alongside Jim at 3 of them. However, remaining on Bonnie Anderson’s Council of Advice, meeting monthly with the leadership of the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittssburgh (PEP) as well as with David Booth Beers and other apparachiks from 815 makes me wonder whether the revisionists at 815 really loathe and fear his work.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I think the 1/3 figure is actually quite accurate. Here is a list of the larger and more “progressive” parishes with their 2006 ASA (I do agree that with the exception of Calvary and St. Brendan’s these parishes are not “monolithic”):
Calvary (Shadyside) – 377
St Paul’s (Mt Lebanon) – 291
Trinity Cathedral – 101
Holy Cross (Homewood) – 91
Redeemer (Squirrel Hill) – 90
St Brendan’s (Franklin Park) – 85
And here is a list of the 10 parishes represented by the 12 priests which signed the letter:
Christ Church (North Hills) – 302
St. Thomas (Oakmont) – 178
St. Michael’s (Ligonier) – 175
St. Stephen’s (McKeesport) – 124
St. Peter’s (Brentwood) -115
St Andrew’s (Highland Park) – 114
St. Barnabas (Brackenridge) – 96
Nativity (Crafton) – 82
Emmanuel (Northside) – 59
St Stephen’s (Wilkinsburg) – 58
The first group represents 1035 ASA and the second 1303, together making 2338. The total ASA in 2006 was 7745. That’s 30.2% of the ASA, very close to 1/3. And as I don’t know the position of every parish in the diocese it is possible some more should be added to this number.
David
Pejorative comments linking the letter being discussed with the Soviet Union (“apparachiksâ€) and Nazi Germany’s rise to power (Neville Chamberlain) are, to my mind, inappropriate.
Some kind of split in Pittsburgh seems inevitable, be it “realignment,†or individual clergy and parishes separating from TEC. If we do not show mercy and grace to one another, can these actions truly be from God?
As you know, I singed the “12†letter, and am staying in TEC. To do otherwise, I believe, violates my ordination vows.
The sacraments of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony have some common ground – even if one spouse has episodes of unfaithfulness, that lack of commitment does not absolve the other from the bond of matrimony. Didn’t Hosea remain with Gomer?
RE: “However, remaining on Bonnie Anderson’s Council of Advice . . . ”
Well, Bishop MacPherson is, I understand, the *chair* of the PB’s “Council of Advice” and still was able to conduct himself quite nicely at Dar Es Salaam. ; > )
RE: ” . . . meeting monthly with the leadership of the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittssburgh (PEP)” . . .
I don’t see that as a negative. I see that as strategic. Meeting with a group of worthy opponents doesn’t mean caving in to them.
RE: “. . . as well as with David Booth Beers and other apparachiks from 815. . . ”
Well goodness, then that would count out Bishop Iker, Bishop Stanton, and more. ; > )
Meeting with people doesn’t, I think, mean caving to them.
But time will tell I guess. It will be most interesting to see what happens to the conservatives who remain.
Steve Smalley:
Do you really believe that SSB’s and universalism in “prayerfully follow[ing] where we believe the Lord is leading”?
RSB
Do you really believe that abortion on demand and embryonic research is “prayerfully follow[ing] where we believe the Lord is leading” and if not, when do you intend to leave the US?
Steve amd Sarah:
My point is simply this. Jim is a conservative and beleives his actions are being strategic but there comes a time when one must consider whether the strategy is is aiding and abetting your opponents (sorry Sarah I do not consider them worthy anymore — too many lawsuits, depositions and canonical chichanery [sp?]) is neutral or is helpful to your friends. Jim may beleive his strategy is helpful to himself and is the neutral via media between realaignment and revisionism but by acting on his strategy, it affect others and perhaps it even might scuttle realignment for those of us who have worked and waited for this chance for years. Before my last comment was edited by the Elves I mentioned Neville Chamberlain: he was a British patriot and a Conservative PM who truly believed his strategy with the Germans in 1938 would bring “peace in our time”. His strategy turned out to be a failure and his opponents in Germany neither feared nor loathed him. The Germans feared and loathed Winston Churchill not Neville Chamberlain and the leadership in TEO fear and loathe +Bob Duncan not Jim Simons for although Jim’s strategy might be beneficial to himself; it certainly has no affect on the plans and strategies of the revisionists and may be detrimental to the realigners.
If one took the ordination vows, then it is obvious those vows are now conflicted – there are the vows of obedience to the bishop AND the canons of the Episcopal “Church”. If they proceed with “deposing” Bp Duncan without inhibition in violation of the canons, then what will Steve Smalley do? He should obey Bp Duncan.
[blockquote]Will you undertake to be a faithful pastor to all
whom you are called to serve, laboring together
with them and with your fellow ministers to build
up the family of God?
Answer I will.[/blockquote]
I really can’t fathom how someone could have agreed to this and then deliver flock up to the wolves. There will be an equivalent “Bp Lamb” in the rump diocese. Steve Smalley will be asked to swear fealty and if he won’t, his parish will be taken away and given to a revisionist. Is that being a faithful pastor?
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Plano approach (giving congregations committed to realignment legal cover to depart) would have been the better course. Apparently the writer of Psalm 55 knew our present condition all too well:
[i]For it is not an open enemy that hath done me this dishonour; for then I could have borne it; Neither was it mine adversary that did magnify himself against me; for then peradventure I would have hid myself from him; But it was even thou, my companion, my guide, and mine own familiar friend.[/i]
I grow very tired of hearing proponents of realignment accuse people with whom they’ve worked amicably for years of being concerned with their own well-being. There is a case for realignment and a conservative case for not doing so (and yes it does include pastoral considerations). I fear we’re entering a stage of corporate (though not individual) hubris, where it seems expedient to blame those conservatives who are choosing not to go for any potential future problems that may arise.
Everybody in Pittsburgh (liberal, communion conservative and federal conservative) is rationalizing their position to a certain extent, from Bishop Duncan downwards. How else to explain his oft-repeated statement over the last few years that the Diocese of Pittsburgh is the same diocese that it has always been? It’s a fair observation understood purely in ecclesial terms, but it’s also been made with American secular law in mind.
Does no one care that when the dust has settled we’re still all going to be living in the same part of Pennsylvania and we may need the reassurance of continued bonds of affection? The divorce is coming and those who have waiting for it with anticipation for years will get what they want. It might be as well for them to bear in mind that the presence of a significant dissenting minority forty years after the “Pittsburgh Paradigm” (shameless plug – see my article in the forthcoming issue of ANGLICAN AND EPISCOPAL HISTORY) was launched testifies to THEIR failure properly to convert the spirit of the Diocese. If everyone had done their job “right,” there would be 100 percent support. Yes, I know that’s a silly argument, but so is blaming communion conservatives for the present unpleasantness.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jeremy
I am sorry to hear you are so tired these days of us realigners but until the communion conservatives decided to publicly break ranks with their bishop and many of their friends, the vote to realign (or not) was clearly a for or against proposition — an clear up or down vote. Jim Simons stated that at the last convention he and his compadres spoke neither for or against realignment. Why not maintain that same posture through the second vote and keep things clean even if you were staying in TEO? If the communion conservatives are gaining strength, as Jim claims, at whose expense is it? Certainly not the progressives? Why a letter to every parish in January? Why an article on the front page of the Post Gazette? Why start a blog 6 months before the second vote promoting your position (pro ACI-fulcrum-Camp Allen-Windsor Compliant-wait for the Covenant and anti-ACN-AAC-Common Cause Partnership-GAFCON)? And why an article 6 weeks before the second vote explaining your position for a decision made in January?
[blockquote] I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Plano approach (giving congregations committed to realignment legal cover to depart) would have been the better course.[/blockquote]
Can a “St Dismas” with an ASA of 70 afford to do what Plano did on its own? No. Besides, the new sheriff in town isn’t going to let there be another Plano, anyway.
[blockquote] If everyone had done their job “right,†there would be 100 percent support. Yes, I know that’s a silly argument, but so is blaming communion conservatives for the present unpleasantness. [/blockquote]
I would only agree that the argument is silly. Bp Duncan, like Bp Schofield before him, is well aware that some congregations will opt to stay in the TEO, some because they are liberal and some because, despite being conservative, they have rectors who believe that they are called to throw their parishes to the wolves. But Bp Duncan will be gracious to both, in stark contrast to the litigious TEO.
The more pastorally responsible course for those “communion conservative” clergy is to encourage their congregations to vote to realign but state that because of their own interpretations of ordination vows that they personally can’t and then ask Bp Duncan to transfer them to other dioceses. This is what Dan Martin+ did.
As one ordained fifteen years ago and still young and naive I guess, I took vows before God to build up the family of God. I did not take a vow to support an institution whose behavior, agenda, and teaching threaten the souls of the family of God. My vows were made to my Lord and Savior, not to the Presiding Bishop and her minions, and my intent was to serve a Church faithful to its Lord and His mission. It always comes as a surprise when I read reasserters’ claims that I made solemn promises to an institution. And that my ministry’s primary responsibility is to preserve that institution at all costs. If reasserters want us to believe vows spoken before an altar in the house of God are promises to support whatever one’s institutional superiors do, moral or immoral, orthodox or heretical, it is no wonder the church is in the mess it is in. Not even members of a religious order, vowed to obedience, are required to acquiesce in sin and untruth.
RE: “I am sorry to hear you are so tired these days of us realigners . . . ”
And of course, Jeremy didn’t say that. Why not quote what he actually said, David?
RE: “the vote to realign (or not) was clearly a for or against proposition—an clear up or down vote.”
Well, certainly those who wished to leave TEC and be a part of the CCP wanted to make it an “up or down vote” with no other options. But that failed. So here’s my question. Why do you suppose it is that some ComCons simply do not wish to make that choice, and are so desperate to not go with the FedCons [other than, of course, their dreadful character, etc.]?
RE: “Why not maintain that same posture through the second vote and keep things clean even if you were staying in TEO?”
Why yes — why not lie? Why not pretend that you like what the diocesan institution is doing? Let’s not de-stabilize anything. Can’t you just get along? Why so divisive? Be quiet — don’t say anything, stop speaking up!
My, my that sounds familiar.
Perhaps because it’s simply not a position of integrity not to talk about your own firmly held beliefs which happen to be quite different from the firmly held beliefs of others, even conservatives.
RE: “Jim is a conservative and beleives his actions are being strategic but there comes a time when one must consider whether the strategy is is aiding and abetting your opponents. . . is neutral or is helpful to your friends.”
Yes. So . . . why don’t the FedCons/CCP think about that? Why don’t they consider whether the strategy is aiding and abetting our opponents?
Or — oh yeh . . . it’s the [i]ComCons[/i] who are supposed to graciously yield to the FedCons, right? That’s the story . . . it’s the ComCons who are not supposed to talk about their views and not upset the apple cart, but are supposed to go along with something that does not fit their theology, their values, their principles, and furthermore to be a part of something that they neither want nor theologically or personally value.
At this point, David, there are a ton of things that could happen that would be good for the FedCons and bad for the ComCons — and thus, yes, aid the revisionists against the ComCons. And there are a ton of things that could happen that would be good for the ComCons and bad for the FedCons — and thus, yes, aid the revisonists against the FedCons. In fact, since the FedCons and ComCons so fervently oppose one another’s tactics, either side can safely make the case that every action of the other is “playing into the hands of the enemy.”
I wish both parties would bless the others’ strategies and move on, despite the great inconvenience and pain of the other’s strategy. When something good happens for the FedCon element, I’ve been happy for them. I want [though am extremely skeptical, for a variety of reasons] their success and joy, even when sometimes the good things that happen for the FedCons are deeply harmful to my own hopes and goals in the Anglican Communion.
And even when I’m glad for their success, that means nothing positive for me in the future, since I don’t want what Common Cause wants nor do I have their goals, nor will I be a part of that body once I leave. But that’s how life goes sometimes — you’re happy for your friends when they achieve what they want, even if what they want isn’t what you want.
On the other hand, the anger and ugliness that I see from FedCons because ComCons have the unmitigated gall to seek a vision that the FedCons neither want nor value is truly breathtakingly arrogant and self-centered.
Of all the things that have happened in TEC, that has been far far more shocking to me than the revisionists, who are, after all, one-note sambas of tedious heresy.
RE: “My vows were made to my Lord and Savior, not to the Presiding Bishop and her minions, and my intent was to serve a Church faithful to its Lord and His mission.”
Yes — and ComCons vows were made to Lord and Savior and not to support the institution of the diocese. They believe that the Lord and His mission calls them to stay.
Their primary responsibility is not to preserve the diocesan institution at all costs or to support whatever one’s institutional superiors do, moral or immoral, orthodox or heretical.
I find it strange that “communion conservatives” are being asked to keep silent and quietly support a position they will not be able to take in the end. Of course Jim should speak out and let his opinions be known. I suspect the “scuttling” of the “long-awaited” realignment is his goal. I also think Jeremy Bonner is probably right- each parish that wants to leave should simply be allowed to go with no recriminations. The court settlement with Calvary, now reopened, clearly set out the procedure for this to happen. If realignment passes even Calvary will be told they are no longer a TEC church but part of the Southern Cone, although I guess each parish can vote themselves back in. If realignment fails those churches that want to leave will go anyway. Now here’s an interesting thought- what if the HOB deposes Bishop Duncan, in violation of the canons, right before the convention and then the vote for realignment fails? That would be a disaster.
David (#14),
As far as I’m concerned the theological argument about whether or not to realign (on balance, I lean towards the former as my vote last year attests) is increasingly being trumped by institutional considerations. I am not tired of “us realigners,” as you put it, but I am tired of the sniping. Federal conservatives know where they’re going and are comfortable with it, so why get so hot and bothered about what is no longer a concern? After all, we all “know” that nothing will happen, the Covenant will be toothless, and that GAFCON will inherit all that is worth saving. If I end up in a realigned diocese, I want to be in a body without bitterness. Is that so much to ask?
Robroy (#15),
To your first point, that is exactly what I had in mind. St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, St. Philip’s, Moon Township, and Ascension, Oakland, and then a host of house churches. Nothing is to be gained by acquiring a battered and bloody “St. Dismas.” It is better for dissenters to start over in a house church.
To your second point, you’ve got the argument backwards, Ordination vows may be Stephen Smalley’s reasoning, but most rectors are trying to avoid parochial meltdown. I would have more respect for someone who called for the dissolution of the existing parish structure, a general reorganization and then rebuilding from zero. I am tired of watching fights over property and of hearing legal arguments at chapter meetings. Nobody ever suggested when I came here four years ago that this was the depth to which the struggle would devolve. It’s not my idea of making salvation history.
My good friend and colleague David asks:
[blockquote]Why a letter to every parish in January? Why an article on the front page of the Post Gazette? Why start a blog 6 months before the second vote promoting your position (pro ACI-fulcrum-Camp Allen-Windsor Compliant-wait for the Covenant and anti-ACN-AAC-Common Cause Partnership-GAFCON)?[/blockquote]
Given the exceptionally energetic and high-profile “campaign” effort in support of realignment, some of which, sadly, seems pointed specifically as an effort to undermine the pastoral relationship of non-realigning conservative rectors in their own parishes, it seems a little odd to me to object to the simple, open presentation of an alternative point of view–a viewpoint which may be “ACI-Windsor Compliant – Fulcrum – Covenant,” apparently voices not worthy of careful attention, but which is also the viewpoint of friends like +Mark Lawrence and +Alden Hathaway, +Jim Stanton and +Ed Little . . . and, for that matter, like ++Drexel Gomez and +++Rowan Williams. Many may disagree with their conclusions, but I wouldn’t think we’d worry too much about having them participate in the debate.
In any case, the reality, as David knows, is that we have a very significant number of small and mid-sized parishes in our diocese that are neither “conservative” nor “progressive,” in any general sense, but are, let’s say, 60%/40%, or 70%/30%–perhaps leaning one way or the other in a quantitative sense, if you were to take a vote, but unable to continue life and ministry as a community without figuring out some way forward that will keep most of the membership together. Not an easy task. I would hope affirming along the way a continuing affection and respect for one another even when we do come up with different conclusions about the best way forward.
The reality is that some of the deputies who will vote in favor of realignment in October will do so knowing that their votes may very well mean that their own parishes will cease to exist at least in their present form. Heavy business. I personally respect those who in conscience find that they must do so, responding to Bishop Duncan’s “fork in the road” scenario. I respect those who will make that choice, many of my dearest friends, and I continue to pray that their lives and ministry and Christian witness will flourish.
But I’m not surprised at all that many would want to ask first, “is this truly the only way forward for faithful, orthodox Christians?”
As Jim notes in his article, each of the rectors among the “Pittsburgh 12+” have invited Bishops Duncan and Scriven and Canon Hays and other speakers in favor of realignment to come into their parishes, to meet with vestries and congregations, and to make their full presentation. Some parishes, including mine, have had them in several times, and have hosted forums for a presentation of varied perspectives in panel discussion. I’m also glad to say that some (though not all, I’m afraid) of our parishes and vestries with rectors supporting realignment have invited both progressive and “communion conservative, non-realigning” speakers to speak also to their parishes and vestries. This is a deep discernment, and it’s about a lot more than “winning a vote at convention.” There is such a thing as “buyer’s remorse,” and to win a vote at convention in the wrong way may have consequences down the road that would cause more problems that the losing of the vote would have caused.
All that is to say, I believe the “motive” for the public speaking of the 12+ is a belief that every member of the diocese, certainly every convention deputy and vestry member, should have the opportunity to hear a full presentation before making a decision that may have cataclysmic consequences. “Be quiet until after the vote” at this point seems, again, an odd thing to ask.
Bruce Robison
Wow! It is hard to comprehend some of the comments I have read above. I think it is interesting that in [b] #21 BMR21+ [/b], he states above: “… that may have cataclysmic consequences.†I ask, in which world, the present or the next?†In [b] #12 robroy [/b], he asks: “… deliver (their) flock up to the wolves.†I say EXACTLY!
When I see a statement like [b] #16 Dan Crawford [/b], I know that this is the kind of pastor I would want to lead me. He has his priorities straight as to what his ordination vows really mean. Enough with all this institutional babble! The job of Christian clergy is to spread the Gospel without excuses or rationalization.
Jeremy writes:
‘I would have more respect for someone who called for the dissolution of the existing parish structure, a general reorganization and then rebuilding from zero. I am tired of watching fights over property and of hearing legal arguments at chapter meetings. Nobody ever suggested when I came here four years ago that this was the depth to which the struggle would devolve. It’s not my idea of making salvation history.’
I too am tired of watching fights over property – but contrary to the tale told at Lambeth, the lawsuits over property have their origin in the national Episcopal organization. It is the national organization that has rejected every reasonable attempt to resolve the conflict. Confronted with that and with the realization that it was the money and gifts of parishioners faithful to the Gospel they heard preached and the sacraments administered to them that led to the building of churches and their maintenance, a parish priest may still have a question about the behavior of the national institution which in the end looks more like theft than protecting the heritage of the church (it obviously has no intention of doing that – it has a “new” revelation). In the end, though, I suspect that when I confront my Savior the first question out of His mouth will not be “Did you do everything in your power to maintain your church’s property in trust for the Episcopal Church?”
Dan,
I have no doubt that the failure to achieve reasonable property settlements is down to 815. However, I’m not sure that this really matters from an objective standpoint, though it’s good that reasserters have not initiated the fight for property and that the assertions made at Lambeth were untrue.
What we are dealing with now are the facts on the ground (some of which Bruce summarized above in relation to the nature of the division within many parishes) and the generally poor financial condition of many of the smaller congregations.
We have a problem inherited from our Episcopal forefathers – an emotional tie to physical space (which is also sacred space, I realize). Yes, there are certain churches conducting important ministries in that space, but if the parachurch movement taught anything it was that you don’t need a church building to do ministry. And there are people in Pittsburgh who’ve been here far longer than I who can attest to that.
My impression – and its only an impression – is that many reasserters still have that physical space gene and that it informs how we approach property issues. Immediately someone suggests walking away, the cry goes up “Oh no, that would be rewarding sinful behavior on our opponents’ part or validating their claims about us.”
I don’t see that we have any more “right” to the buildings in a transcendent sense than does TEC. Walking away could simply be part of the process of renewal, a chance to free ourselves from the burden of maintenance of buildings whose time is past.
And do let’s be honest, those who bequeathed money in halcyon days long past did so for a variety of reasons, not all of them altruistic. I have my doubts that every part of Trinity Cathedral’s endowment represents the fruits of personal toil, humbly given to the greater glory of God. I believe in the Communion of Saints but I’m not about to conceive of every parishioner of Trinity Church/Cathedral down the centuries as living his or her earthly life in a perpetual state of grace.
Our present concern must be with the living; only our prayers can serve the dead. And when your Savior greets you I have equal doubt whether his first question will be “Did you keep the building out of the hands of 815?”
Jeremy: If I read your comments correctly you suggest that one solution would be that all the reasserters could walk away from their property and leave it to those who remain. Is that a fair interpretation?
In fact when reasserters claim to be taking their properties with them in realignment are they not initiating the fight for property? If they walked away with no property, there would be no fights!
Maybe that is what the TEC people meant over at Lambeth when they said the reasserters were causing all the problems!
Eugene (#25)
It is one solution. It is not the only one, but it is at least worth contemplating. My desire would be that we focus at least as much on what property does [i]to[/i] us as [i]for[/i] us. It doesn’t matter how misguided or unjust TEC is in its dealings. The only thing that matters is how we treat each other, even when we disagree.
Make property a separate issue from the theology of realignment. Maybe we ultimately conclude that we’re still called to pursue the legal route (though it’s not something to which I would ever personally be willing to be party). Maybe we decide that we’re called to depart without the plant in which we’ve invested so much of ourselves.
If the Church is not a democracy (and it isn’t) then majority decisions by General Convention cannot be accorded the level of respect that they would enjoy in a secular setting. How then can we set such store by our diocesan convention decision unless we appeal to the same democratic standard that we have elsewhere repudiated? That is why decision by congregation is potentially so toxic when most of them are not monolithic. The scenario I outlined above would have been much healthier, since it would have enabled those called to realignment to pursue their mission without major maintenance concerns. It couldn’t have been worse than what is likely to follow.
For my part, a schoolhouse congregation under foreign oversight (I would prefer the West Indies to the Southern Cone, but that’s just me) sounds very appealing if it could be done without acrimony. Instead of which I’m in the position of sharing in the governance of a divided congregation that still has to find a way through the process that guarantees everybody’s integrity.
Yes, you said their property. You didn’t say TEC’s property because the churches actually belong (in a practical way) to the parishioners who pay for the purchase and upkeep of said properties, and consider it a semipublic space where they can congregate without being accused by the secularists of violating the separation of church and state owned public space. The property, without the congregation, is either a choice piece of real-estate to be redeveloped, or a historical landmark with no one to pay for the upkeep.
Now what was the book of Nehehiah all about?
One could also go farther by asking if “In fact when reasserters claim to be preaching the Gospel when moving toward realignmentâ€, are they not initiating a fight with TEC over the Truth.
Telling these congregations to abandon their buildings and meet in a school is a load of horse hockey. Church starts like that have at best a 50/50 chance of making it.
The church buildings are meant to be a beacon on the hill.
The parishes in the diocese of Pittsburgh have one chance at having a non-heretical bishop and their church buildings. Will it work? Who knows? The court may slap it down. But the people of Pittsburgh have to ask themselves if they want Jerry Lamb or Harold Lewis as their next bishop because that is what they’re going to get.
The problem is that you can’t win. No matter what the vestry and clergy do…there is a significant downside…because in fact even if the church appears to be a hierarchy…it is a pure democracy…people vote with their feet and dollars…and no matter what you decide between staying or leaving a significant group in a parish or diocese is going to be displeased and leave.
I think it is fair to say that the reality for most clergy is that the insistence of the liberal agenda has devastated their lives…killing their parishes, putting their integrity in doubt, causing enmity with old friends…and so we all try to justify our decisions in a system where there are no perfect outcomes possible given the circumstances we have all been put in and this is a stunning failure of our leaders on both sides.
Robroy (#28)
Where’s David Handy gone? I would like to have him give his spiel on the need for a radical reordering of priorities.
I suspect Sudan’s Anglicans would be surprised to hear about how vital buildings are to spreading the message of the Kingdom. If you have so little confidence in the second great reformation then you might as well write the whole experiment off now.
And I could point you to a church plant in Montana that took the route I advocate two years ago and is doing very nicely thank you. For my part, I would settle for a spirit-filled community without walls (oddly enough, most of the more recent church plants in Pittsburgh have followed that model). And if there’s no institutional parish safety net, I think people will take the time to make new plants work. It’s all in what we think is important, after all.
Father Armstrong,
Thanks for that last paragraph of your post.
[blockquote] [b] #30 [/b] … Without walls (oddly enough, most of the more recent church plants in Pittsburgh have followed that model) … [/blockquote]
As just an uninformed lay person who doesn’t even know how to spell Nehemiah, I guess I don’t follow the above statement. I spent yesterday evening at a Pittsburgh church plant. We were using a sophisticated sound system, two video projectors and a professional kitchen to prepare the after service food. Sorry, the loaves and fishes trick doesn’t work with us. The other Church plant that comes to my mind will use (non TEC) property just a block from my house. Without property, I guess we could stand on a busy corner with a placard and proclaim it is time to repent. I may not need any health care or a pension system either. Ahh to be a flower child of the late sixties. Even if we want to not be of the world, we are still in it.
[blockquote] And I could point you to a church plant in Montana that took the route I advocate two years ago and is doing very nicely thank you.[/blockquote]
That is what we in medicine call anecdotal evidence. How many church starts have tried and failed? Again, 50-50 is probably about right, give or take 40% or so. I talked to +John Guernsey about it. He is much more knowledgeable about it, and he confirmed that it is very, very difficult. So please, no Sudan references.
My point: it is immoral to let the building fall into the hands of the the TEO and Harold Lewis or whomever the bishop will be of the rump Episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh.
And the second great reformation will happen but not without a fight. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Capitulation to the secular world and giving up parishes to Ms Schori and Mr Booth Beers won’t win the battle.
Cole,
My apologies – the phrase wasn’t meant to be taken literally. Clearly everyone is going to be meeting in a building of some description and will no doubt ultimately aspire to ownership of such a building. Yet there is all the difference in the world between Trinity Cathedral and Shepherd’s Heart, with whom we partner. Over more than two centuries there has been a continuous lament from Pittsburgh’s bishops, clergy and lay leaders alike that what everyone is in search of is to become an established congregation and yet when that happens the dynamism frequently goes out of the body.
The approach promoted in the 1990s, at least as far as I could identify it in the historical record, was composed of phrases like “cell groups,” “equipping ministry” and the like (Incarnation Fellowship in Robinson Township, for example) which are very far removed from the world of the institutional church. I will certainly defer to someone who belongs to one of the younger plants as to how you actually structure your operations, but I would imagine that your priorities are somewhat different from that of the more conventional parish.
Robroy,
Even if the success rate is low, so what? We’re simply going to be choosing among different types of attrition, anyway. Perhaps our difference comes down to the fact that you see the struggle with 815 as fundamental, I see it is as incidental. For me, victory in the secular courts will be inconsequential with the current cast of mind. If people relish this fight (as opposed to going into it in the spirit with which Augustine initially resisted efforts to make him a bishop) then something is very wrong. Matthew 24: 9-14 says it best:
[i]Then shall they deliver you up unto tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all the nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many stumble, and shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray. And because iniquity shall be multiplied, the love of the many shall wax cold. But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.[/i]
Not exactly a mandate for resort to the secular courts, I would submit.
Apologies to the elves for monopolizing this thread.
[blockquote][b]#32[/b] I spent yesterday evening at a Pittsburgh church plant. We were using a sophisticated sound system, two video projectors and a professional kitchen to prepare the after service food. Sorry, the loaves and fishes trick doesn’t work with us. The other Church plant that comes to my mind will use (non TEC) property just a block from my house. Without property, I guess we could stand on a busy corner with a placard and proclaim it is time to repent. I may not need any health care or a pension system either. Ahh to be a flower child of the late sixties. Even if we want to not be of the world, we are still in it. [/blockquote]
By this description, I think you must have been visiting us this weekend, Cole, while I was away for a wedding in South Carolina. Fortunately we don’t have to concern ourselves with the loss of property since we technically don’t own any property, but I would like to think that we as a church community would be willing to forsake all the material benefits we have accumulated for the sake of the gospel. Six years ago we were a group of believers meeting together in one house, and God has provided abundantly for us.
Well, a few months ago we were just an idea. Now our attendance is in three figures and we haven’t even seen the start of the local universities’ school year. We will not fit into someone’s living room.
You know, I have two children. My late wife and I together raised them for most of their lives. Now I have no wife and they have no mother. It isn’t easy, but hopefully all three of us will turn out OK. If TEC had put a contract out on my wife, I guess I would have a grievance with them. What they did do was put a contract out on the majority of my diocese and our bishop. I think a quote I heard was: “We will sue you for every last Sunday School crayon.†If they succeed, I’m sure it will make a great impression about their Christian tolerance on our Sunday School children. Who needs children anyway? (Sarcasm) I think the orthodox in Pittsburgh (the region) will turn out OK. In fact, I think Pittsburgh is a shining “beacon on the hillâ€, as #28 robroy used the expression, with or without some of the property. I also think our bishop will turn out OK, free of the unholy bonds of TEC, but still an Anglican with international respect.
Yes, our orthodoxy is more important than our property. It will still be a blow if we lose some of our churches to Satan. Really, how does that play into the discussion of this topic?
#10, Sarah – that is a cheap shot. Comparing the inner theology of The Episcopal Church and one who is a member by choice is far different than living in the culture we are born into and called to transform. Culture doesn’t necessarily prayerfully follow God; the church should. In addition, the theology of the church should align with the nature of God – not the culture. I’ve had enough of that confusion our opponents.
If the orthodox faithful of the diocese of Pittsburgh, hand over the keys and start up services in the local elementary school, then there is a 100% chance they will lose their church properties and say, a 50-50 chance of surviving. Great strategy, there, Mr Bonner. Being wise as serpents should entail following a little basic logic and strategic planning.
Robroy,
Frankly, if you bothered to read my posts instead of reading your agenda into them, you would note that I called for discernment as to the place of property in our “strategy”. I seriously question what the state of the souls of many congregations will be after a long and bitter fight. I’m surprised that a physician would be so blase about collateral damage.
I found your earlier suggestion that the [i]church building[/i] is meant to be the “beacon on the hill” astonishing. It would have taken John Winthrop aback, especially when you consider that the New England meetinghouse was not a church so much as a civic building in which the faithful periodically gathered to pray. If anyone is making a God out of property it’s not I.
I also took considerable umbrage at your earlier suggestion that comparisons with Sudan were misplaced. So now we can invoke the African experience when it comes to pointing out the absurdity of western liberals claiming that they too are persecuted, but not when it comes to proposing changes in our own behavior? If you actually respect what African Anglicans have done and are doing, then there is no greater demonstration of that than to put ourselves where they are (and we will still be better off because most of our income doesn’t come from endowments but from tithers who will still be there when the dust settles).
Or is it easier to contemplate a familiar confrontation in secular courtrooms over the unfamiliar and risky business of chancing one’s arm in a 50-50 proposition? There is strategy and there is strategy. What you’re proposing is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory at best and at worst . . . I shudder to think.
I would add that it’s absurd to imply that the failure of an individual plant means that the members stop being Christians; if one door closes, another will open.
RE: “#10, Sarah – that is a cheap shot.”
No, RS Bunker, not cheap . . . but easy . . . It was sure easy to point out just how radically inconsistent — and thus hypocritical — with your standard you yourself are.
You attempted to make a point with a man who stated that he felt called to stay in TEC — an organization that on the national level supports some horrible things . . . just as America does, just as the ABA does, just as the APA does, just as the AMA does and just as the NEA does . . . along with many many many hundreds of other organizations do.
But because of your inconsistent standard, you failed to make that point.
You are — even if you were born into America, as some were born into TEC — an American [i]by choice[/i]. You don’t have to stay here — you choose to.
Denying that choice is what is cheap.
Neither culture, countries, nor organizations “prayerfully follow God” — but people can. And Steve Smalley believes that God has called him to stay in both America — and TEC.
I hope you can listen to God’s call for your life, as to whether you will stay within America — or leave it. It’s your choice.
But if you stay, I hope that you fight as hard as you can to call America back, just as I hope that Steve Smalley does the same in both America and TEC.
We need more Steve Smalley’s in this world in every organization, segment of culture, state of the union, and denomination. May his tribe increase.
What can be beacons/cities on a hill? John Winthrop believed that the Massachusetts Bay Colony would be a city on a hill. Individuals can be cities or beacons on a hill, i.e., call the world to come and see. Can churches have such ability to draw people in? Of course. (And I said, “a beacon” not “the beacon”. You seem to have problems with definitive articles like Ms Schori.) Would the Puritan, anti-Catholic Winthrop have approved of the “gaudy” edifices? Probably not. So what?
But church buildings not only draw people in, but they also protect those on the inside from the darts of the evil one on the outside.
The effort to realign will be a Pyrrhic Victory? What evidence? The churches in Virginia seem to be doing quite well. San Joaquin seems to be doing quite well. Pittsburgh will do well under the brave leadership of Bp Duncan.
The Africans have amply demonstrated that they are not afraid of a fight. They are not timid pushovers.
Again Mr Bonner’s “tactic” of capitulation has a 100% chance of losing the properties and most likely would result in the death of orthodox Anglicanism in the Pittsburgh area. Mr Simon’s inside strategy holds the same future. Look at San Diego – just ordained their first homosexual deacon – how long did it take for them to go from orthodoxy to apostasy – Mr Simons think Pittsburgh is different? So why are we discussing these “strategies”?