“No one goes to church to fight,” said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for the diocese, whose conservative leader, Bishop Robert W. Duncan, was removed by the national church on Sept. 18 for pushing for secession. “It’s going to be difficult. And, at the same time, there’s hope in this. It’s time to move on.”
The drive to divorce the Episcopal Church arose after the election of V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. But the secessionists say the issue is not simply about homosexuality. “Bishop Robinson is a symptom, not the cause of our disagreement with the Episcopal Church,” Mr. Frank said.
The dispute includes complaints that the national church allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God, or that the only way to God is through Jesus ”” tenets of faith that conservatives find indisputable.
But an opponent of secession, the Rev. Jay Geisler of St. Stephens Church in McKeesport, Pa., pointed out that those tenets are in the Book of Common Prayer, which guides the church. Mr. Geisler added, “I just can’t see Jesus Christ forcing us to go one way or the other and split apart.”
[blockquote]“I just can’t see Jesus Christ forcing us to go one way or the other and split apart.â€[/blockquote]
I just can’t see Jesus Christ saying those universalist statements are not apostasy which ought to be – but never are – soundly renunciated.
It is clear the Book of Common Prayer does not “guide the church” when those tenets are in it, but are not heeded by numerous bishops, including the PB – along with other tenets, such as no communion of the unbaptised. The response of Rev. Geisler seems to me a smokescreen about what is really occurring.
How I wish I lived in Pittsburgh, I would LOVE to participate in their historic convention. God bless +Bob Duncan and the faithful believers of his diocese!
“You cannot serve God and mammon.” Nope. No choice there. No forcing by Jesus to go one way or another at all. One of the most inclusive statements Jesus ever made. (How did the Jesus Seminar vote on this saying, by the way?)
It would be the politicians within the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC to manipulate the same into prohomosexualist positions and who engineered VGR’s “election, ratification, and ‘consecration'” who are forcing the “apartness”. It is called “inclusivism” and its results are as plain as the financial crises of the moment. That it excludes all but its own “new thang in the spirit (of the age)” is NOT the cause, do you hear,? Do you hear? Believe that or hit the road Jack, Jacqueline, Jeanette, and Junior – and don’t let the door hit ya on the way out!
Does this guy get out very much? Follow the national organization? See the international consequences? Buy into inadabadaveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeda and you-bunt-too? Seems like.
Little Cabbage,
While it will certainly make history, I’m not sure many of us are contemplating the convention with great enthusiasm. There are going to be too many ruptures openly proclaimed for it to be a moment for celebration. I suspect many of us – even fervent realigners – just want it over.
I plan to come home on Saturday and get a report out to the wider Anglican public. It will wrap up my work on Pittsburgh’s diocesan history (which will be coming out under the Wipf and Stock imprint in 2009) very nicely.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#3,
Whatever Jay Geisler is, an accommodationist he is not. He’s shepherding his flock (which happens to be Mark Lawrence’s old parish) as he believes he’s been called to do. Jay it was who, at the 2003 special convention in Monroeville, called for the second great reformation to begin (a little ironic coming from a former Roman Catholic priest). He’s also been instrumental in the tradition of healing ministry for which Pittsburgh has been famous since the Second World War.
Of course, people can and will disagree with his approach, but you might just as well make the same point about the Diocese of South Carolina. Perhaps Jay is just taking a cue from his predecessor.
The NYT journalist writes:
A few points. First, the article is not objective journalism, but is subtly biased in favor of the regnant party in TEC. (Gasp! Liberal bias at the NYT?) Note the subtle use of language here: “If secession is approved, the national church will… begin work to retain ownership of church property, just as it has done in San Joaquin.”
Note the way the phrase BEGIN WORK hides the true nature of the work KJS will begin (draconian lawsuits against individual parishes, clergy, and laity) and the way RETAIN presupposes that 815 does indeed already own this property.
More accurate and more helpful to the uninformed reader would have been:
“If secession is approved, the national church will begin filing lawsuits in an attempt to seize control of parish property, just as it has done in San Joaquin.”
That’s my first thought.
Second, I would love it if anyone can help me understand — and I truly ask this is a spirit of gentleness and charity (but of course also truth) — how it is that someone could be at once a theological conservative and at the same time allying himself with KJS and the policies and lawsuits she will indeed pursue: against Duncan, against the Standing Committee, against vast numbers of parishes.
I have vast amounts of sympathy and support for theological conservatives who chose to stay in TEC for any number of reasons, typically in their patient and loving witness AGAINST the policies (ecclesial and theological) which TEC is pursuing. They feel that they are called to remain, and I feel all of us on the other side should love and respect what must be a hard decision for them.
But… what I simply can’t imagine… is a person who is a deep traditionalist, a theological conservative, and who clearly plans to work hand in glove with the new order in the policies it plans to pursue against his traditionalist brothers who are trying to realign.
I am completely baffled. Can someone help?
Do the letters ‘CPF’ ring a bell? (Sorry, I know it’s cynical, but from my experience I know it’s true).
Jeremy Bonner, thanks for the info. My questions remain.
Jon: I share your concerns. I have no problem with conservatives who wish to remain in TEC (like Rob Eaton from the Diocese of San Joaquin). What mystifies me is that any of them would cooperate with KJS and her blatant, open abuse of TEC canons, and her mean-spirited attempt to litigate her opponents into nothing. Rob Eaton did this in a way that kept his integrity and credibility intact. Brian Cox seriously compromised his credibility by playing footsies with KJS.
Were I in Pittsburgh and desiring to remain in TEC, I would (1) acknowledge the Diocese’s right to secede; and (2) begin work to organize a new diocese and go through the right motions to get such new diocese lawfully admitted into union with the General Convention.
I would like to hear from Mr. Simons and the other conservatives who are seeking to ally with KJS to hear what their perspective is on this issue. And I mean that in an upfront way, it isn’t meant to be a sneering, rhetorical question.
#7,
I doubt if the people I know would count that cost in the equation, but anything’s possible, I suppose.
I happen to agree with some of those posting that I would like to know more about what the non-realigning conservatives plan for the future, but we did accept the principle of tactical secrecy for ACN’s leaders in the years between 2004 and 2006, so can’t we afford the former the same grace?
Furthermore, I suspect some of them are feeling their way towards a workable formula. Yes it’s a gamble, but it’s obviously better for everyone (including the realigners) if they can make it work.
The TEC HOB may have really “stepped in it” by deposing Bishop Duncan BEFORE the convention voted. I would guess that the vote to leave TEC is fairly certain. But how individual churches will act is much harder to predict. Pittsburgh is a much wealthier diocese than was San Joaquin which gives parishes more of an independent view. Also, the churchmanship is more diverse and women’s ordination is already a fact. Statmann
“It would be a difficult move for Mr. Simons, who is theologically conservative himself”.
Rock, meet hard place. I wonder where Mr. Simons will find himself once GC mandates gay marriage without a conscience clause.
Sooner or later, I think he will still have to face getting out.
Prayers and God bless…
OK we have a precedent of how Ms Schori and Mr Beers deals with sitting standing committee members who are orthodox yet want to remain part of the TEO. Does Mr Simons think that he will be treated differently that differently? The TEO is all about setting themselves in a position to sue. Does Mr Simons want to abet this? Mr Simons go and read Brian Cox’s essay about his realization that he was played as a puppet by Ms Schori [url=http://descant.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/fr-brian-cox-to-heal-a-diocese-or-not/ ]here[/url].
Those with long memories of that relatively young organization, the AAC, will know that Fr. Jim Simons was one of its foremost leaders back when it began. He has always been a consummate political tactician, and he appears to continue to uphold the AAC’s original vision of working for change from within TEC, long after his former colleagues +David Anderson and +John Guernsey abandoned that strategy as hopeless.
I can’t answer the questions others have raised above about how he can possibly cooperate in any way with the notorious Presiding Bishop. Jeremy and others who know him personally might have a better idea about that.
But I wouldn’t trust the NYT report that the national headquarters will in fact rely on Fr. Simons to organize the new TEC diocese in Pittsburgh. As robroy has pointed out, they didn’t trust Fr. Rob Eaton in San Joaquin. I fully expect them to turn to one of their own, a committed advocate of the new gospel of inclusivism and relativism propogated by the PB and her revisionist ilk: someone like the Rev. Harold Lewis of Calvary Church. We won’t have to wait long to find out.
God bless +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted and the many faithful orthodox Anglicans who make the Diocese of Pittsburgh one of the greatest dioceses in the US. I’m so proud of them for their courage and their willingness to make great sacrifices for the sake of the true gospel.
David Handy+
Jeremy – I’m thankful for your insider’s perspective on the people involved. I mean to bring no slight to the character or conscience of those making achingly difficult decisions. However, I still cannot fathom the unblinking statement by Rev. Geisler that the BCP reaffirms the tenets of faith listed in the article, therefore the church has been sufficiently guided – since a number of bishops and other ordained openly profess otherwise. As presented (granted the statement may have been taken out of all context), it appears to say there is not enough to be making a fuss about.
One thing I missed out on by the way things have been playing out in San Joaquin was being an integral part of the litigation process. That’s not a complaint in the standard mode. The Standing Committee had to go, in the PB’s perspective, so that litigation could go forward without a voluntary return of properties, etc. If our Standing Committee had held, we would have held the diocese apart from whatever TEC would have done in that regard.
It could have been, though. If I had accepted the offer which was made days prior to the meeting in March in Stockton, I would have had my name placed into nomination from the floor (some parting of waters to make that happen) for a position as, yes, Standing Committee member. By the way, after people at the meeting had finished talking to our Sr Warden as one of our delegation during the time we were there, it’s quite possible I would have been elected, albeit for a variety of reasons uttered. Setting aside the loss of integrity that would have resulted in even accepting the offer of nomination considering the very reason we went to that meeting, let me say something about the new set of conundrums that would have ensued if I had been elected.
I would have become complicit as a member of the Standing Committee in litigation for recovery of properties, even though I would have objected.
Then I and our parish would have come under extreme duress to stop or turn over our work in the reclaiming (successful, I might add, without cost) of our own property for Episcopal Church business and ministry to the litigation team.
We might have avoided, though, being mentioned in the amended complaint for our Merrill Lynch parish account, and thus not frozen out, but still would have probably come under demand of scrutiny as to why the account was in our hands.
Except for the loose strings of property and asset account, I pray that Jim and others in the diocese who choose not to realign will not be manipulated into signing onto litigation. Any complaint against a Corp Sole for recovering real property, facilities and assets by TECUSA simply has no guts without getting the Standing Committee (the remaining, leftover one) as the ecclesiastical authority to buy in and take the lead (at least on paper).
I’ll leave the rest of the scenario to Jim+. I’m sure he’s played this out in his head two or three ways.
My prayers for all in Pittsburgh this weekend.
Episcope has the following comment attached to their link to this report:
[i] Note: The following letter has been sent to the reporter:
Thank you for your in-depth article which appeared in today’s New York Times, Pittsburgh Episcopalians Weigh Division. However, I must point out that the Episcopal Church has never disputed that “Jesus is the Son of Godâ€. While there may be debate in some quarters about beliefs of the Episcopal Church, there has never been “open debate†or any debate in councils or conventions on our core belief that Jesus is the Son of God. [/i]
Interestingly the article says:
[blockquote] The dispute includes complaints that the national church allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God, or that the only way to God is through Jesus — tenets of faith that conservatives find indisputable. [/blockquote]
They made no protestations about misrepresentation on the “That the only way to God is through Jesus”. I wonder if that is significant?
I think the plan is that Dr. Simons will pick two or three people to join him on the “re-formed” TEC Standing Committee. He will no doubt be obligated to select at least one radical revisionist partner from the Across The Aisle group- otherwise the collegiality would be compromised and KJS/DBB might get nervous and decide to intervene. When elections for the remaining positions take place revisionists will gain more members, perhaps a majority. At that point the litigation fanatics, who have years of experience in suing Bishop Duncan, will insist on legal avenues to regain all Diocesan property. Dr. Simons has yet to comment on these anticipated legal battles. It predict in will get ugly.