In response to a lawsuit led by one of its parishes, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has agreed to have a court-appointed neutral party inventory all of its property and assets as it prepares for a final vote on seceding from the Episcopal Church.
The agreement between representatives of the diocese and Calvary Episcopal Church, Shadyside, came after a hearing yesterday before Joseph M. James, president judge of Common Pleas Court. In 2005, he oversaw a settlement after Calvary sued the diocese to prevent the transfer of property from the denomination to individual parishes.
Calvary has led a minority of parishes that oppose Bishop Robert Duncan’s plan to leave the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion and realign with the more conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America over concerns about doctrine and sexual ethics. A final vote is set for Oct. 4.
We have a release that provides detail on what was decided available here:
http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/diocesestatement090908/
How hard it is to be both wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove!!
God bless Bp. Duncan and the diocese of Pittsburgh. The Anglican world is watching…and maybe, even a few non-Anglicans! May the witness be positive and gracious.
Please allow a question from one of those non-Anglicans noted above, and understand that I am not asking this to be contentious. I can grasp the concept of a congregation separating from a church body, and reasons why it might be considered to be necessary. Is there not, however, a fundamental difference between that and a diocese separating itself from a body of which it is a creation? I need some help understanding the structure of TEC.
Well Bill, funny you asked. Maybe your question is geared toward corporate structure only, but let me share the mind set of many many people in the Pittsburgh Diocese.
Those people in the realignment camp see it this way: We are Christians first. Our understanding of what it means to be Christian is to base our beliefs in Scripture. The Anglican Communion came out of the Reformation with this understanding. In the last forty or so years, and especially the last five, ECUSA (TEC) has drifted away from this understanding. The orthodox parishes in Pittsburgh have not. A church and Church are primarily based on the faith. Church corporate structure is created only to help organize and promote that faith. Once the structure is at odds with the original beliefs of that Church there is a real problem. So now we see a minority within Pittsburgh trying to destroy the orthodox majority who want to freely practice their religion as guaranteed by the US Constitution, and doing it in the churches (involving real property) that they or their ancestors help create, buy and support. Since the majority feel this way and want to only be led by Godly Bishops, the only way we can remain part of an Anglican Communion is to realign. We can’t all just pick-up easily and physically move to the Southern Cone or Africa – Seriously! We can try to remain together here in the US, but not under the subjugation of what we feel is an a apostate hierarchy.
It was, in fact, a corporate question. I am an orthodox believer living in Western Pennsylvania who grew up in and still attend PC(USA) services and am active in the congregation that my family help to found in the 18th century (There is some dispute as to whether I am still a member. I say no. They disagree.), so I do understand the rest of it. I have spent some little time with and have a great deal of respect for Bishop Duncan. I thank you for your response, but I do not see that it answers the structural question. Perhaps my questions is simply misguided.
fatbill,
Dioceses pre-exist being in “a body.” They form and ask for membership in that body. The body does not create the diocese.
Hope that helps.
fatbill:
Perhaps you need to be in New Wineskins. Pittsburgh is a light on the top of the hill for more than one denomination. I just couldn’t help getting my two cents in after your question. The reason I did so was to address the ideas expressed lately that all is well and the break-up in Pittsburgh Diocese will go amicably. Believe me that is not the view of those people involved with defending the litigation. Bishop Duncan has taken a very charitable stance with those who disagree over the property of the diocese. The other side has done the opposite. I read all this stuff about canons, structure, etc, but want to remind people that the real meaning of the Church, and the Saints of the Church, was explained by the apostle Paul in his epistles. The litigation is just going to have to take its course and I think there are going to be both “so called†orthodox clergy either stranded in a place where they will later not want to be, or they may have actually made their choice to be “of the worldâ€.
To expand on #6: Historically, the “Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church” (aka “ECUSA” or “TEC”)is the American colonial expression of The Church of England. The dioceses that formed, formed around a bishop, with the priests, deacons, and the laity forming the highest Anglican organizational structure: the diocese. Those dioceses in the 18th century came together and formed “The General Convention”, and organized a voluntary association of Episcopalians, with meetings periodically held for mutual support of ministry, fellowship, and faithful discipleship. For over 150 years, those meetings were chaired by the senior most bishop (senior in terms of service as a bishop…not age), who presided and was, hence, known as “the presiding bishop”.
Over time, more formal structures at a “national” level developed. In the mid-20th century, the ecumenical movement influenced ECUSA to upgrade the notion of a “national church”, with reference to a “national cathedral”, and a presiding bishop who was himself upgraded to some sort of “arch-bishop” dignity. Late in the 20th century, this upgrade was further distinguished by the addition of a title, absurd in its vacuity, “Primate”! In no sense has the PB ever had any authority over dioceses or parishes, and his office has moved into the limelight as an Emperor/emperess with no clothes. English arch-bishops have actual congregations and clergy for whom they exercise real oversight and authority. The ABC, for instance, is not only the titular head of Anglicanism, he actually oversees the diocese of Canterbury. TEC’s PBs have no people, no parishes, no actual oversight of dioceses or congregations.
Hence: PBs and “the national church” have no claim to “own” or be “over” bishops and dioceses.
Cole: It seems to me in order to leave the denomination you all have to change your local parishes bylaws which almost always say that the parish is in relationaship ( I am vague here on purpose) with TEC. Also it is almost imposiible to legally change the bylaws because if you do you are declaring that you are not in relationship with TEC and most bylaws then say that you are no longer members of that parish if you are not in TEC .
So most of the realigners cross their fingers and get on with “ministry” OK I understand, it just may not be legal.
I think the courts will want to look at all the bylaws of the parishes that leave and see when they were changed. If changed recently, a red flag will arise!
Eugene,
I can’t say what is in each individual church bylaws – Only my own. I also rather talk in generalities instead of specific facts. I’ll leave that up to others more qualified. As long as we get through this struggle and still retain our faith and leadership, that is what is most important.