“This is a sad day,” said the Rev. James Simons, the only member of the diocese’s Standing Committee, the top administrative body, who voted against seceding. “They took the convention’s theme, ”˜A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand,’ and today caused the Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh to be divided indeed.”
Mr. Simons, who will lead a reconstitution of the diocese with the national church, said at least 16 of the 74 parishes in the Pittsburgh diocese were expected to stay with the national church.
The Pittsburgh diocese is the second, after the Diocese of San Joaquin in Fresno, Calif., to vote to leave the national church. At least two other dioceses, in Fort Worth and Quincy, Ill., are scheduled to vote on seceding in November.
The movement is driven by theologically conservative leaders who believe the church has turned away from traditional biblical teachings on issues like whether Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation.
It is hard for many to understand what is going on, in respect of those who are conservative in Pittsburgh but who are not inclined to realign with Southern Cone. The press accounts are useful in indicating that at issue is not just Harold Lewis+ here and +Bob Duncan there, but beyond that, much is unclear. Can someone locally involved explain (please, without a lot of vituperation or bias) what the next season looks like for non-leavers and non-PEP groupings?
Chris,
There are between 20-24 Pittsburgh parishes that “as parishes” have already or will soon formally indicate their intention to continue as parishes of the Episcopal Church. From a handful of these there will be “realigning breakaway” groups, as there will be “remaining Episcopalian breakaway” groups from a handful of the 45-50 realigning congregations. My sense is that among the “remaining Episcopalian” congregations and clergy conservatives would have a small majority, progressives a substantial minority. However, there has been over the past months of preparation a strong emerging sense that in the context of governance and common life we’re going to need to move cautiously and with intention to find reasonably broad support across the wider spectrum. In such a fragile moment, the last thing we will want or need is an effort to divide as “winners” and “losers.” I expect that the diocese, when “reorganized,” will probably look a bit more like a “Windsor Diocese” than a “Network Diocese.” But, we’ll see.
In the next few weeks the “remaining Episcopalian” Standing Committee, Board of Trustees, and Diocesan Council will meet to assess their current situation. The Standing Committee will give notice, and in a couple of months, probably early December, a Special Convention will be called to complete the process of reorganizing the governing structures by electing officers. Under the Title III canons related to dioceses without bishops, the Standing Committee will either arrange for a visiting bishop to begin to provide Episcopal services, or it may be that the Special Convention will choose to elect a Provisional Bishop. There are some proposed time lines at the “Across the Aisle” website, [url=http://www.episcopalpgh.org] Across the Aisle[/url].
I am, and many of us here, are indeed concerned both about the precedents of San Joaquin and the tortured interpretation of the canons in Bishop Duncan’s deposition. However, I would say that to date we have been careful and straightforward in our communications with the PB and her representatives, and she has been consistent in her commitment to us to “support” us in our reorganization, but not to impose something from the outside. To this point there is nothing at all to indicate that she is not keeping to that commitment. Some of my realigning friends say, “you’ll see, and you’ll be sorry.” And I understand. We’ll indeed just have to see.
Bruce Robison
Bruce, thank you. It seems to me that in most realigning cases people have been predisposed to fight the PB. My impression is that her view is simple: you can think what you want, just stay within the church.
#2. 1. ‘small majority’ and ‘substantial minority’ would not appear to comprise 100%. Is there another group? 2. I take it that ‘network’ means ‘common cause’ and that ‘windsor’ means something akin to ‘communion partners’? The terms do not translate clearly outside Pittsburgh. In general, it sounds as though you are hoping to have a Diocese whose composition is ‘conservative’ in a small majority and that is unaffected by 815 interference.
In fact right now I think we’re not quite so concerned about counting noses and making sure everybody has party labels affixed. Where I think we are is to say that we have in the “remaining Episcopalian” diocese a good number of conservative clergy and congregations, a good number of progressive clergy and congregations, and a number as well who would defy easy categorization. We have some very challenging tasks ahead of us in the rebuilding of our diocesan infrastructures of ministry, mission, and governance, and we are trying to avoid situations in this very fragile moment that would repolarize our common life. I expect that at least for the next year or two we will be as intentional as we can be about finding solutions to our internal life that will be able to achieve broad support, general if not perfect consensus. My guess is that the internal climate will trend in a conservative direction, but with a tone that reflects the practicalities of a more diverse diocesan family. Some from our diocese will continue to be involved on the wider stage, but I would expect Pittsburgh from here on out to look perhaps a bit more like, well, a Central Florida or Northern Indiana, than like the “first-to-the-barricades” Pittsburgh of recent years. If as we shake out over the coming year it turns out that the more progressive parishes and clergy are the “slim majority,” with the more conservative the “substantial minority,” perhaps the analogues will be more like, well, a Texas or a Virginia. We just won’t really know for a while.
BruceR