November 8, 2009

Reports from the Anglican Diocese

The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, the “realigned” group led by now-archbishop Robert Duncan, held its first annual convention November 6–7, 2009. Some interesting reports on the convention are now available on the Web.

The convention was held at “St. Steven’s Church,” the Sewickley, Pa., facility led by Geoff Chapman (famous for his notorious 2003 letter) and arguably the property of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published stories on November 7 and November 8. Less helpful is the story published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on November 8. More helpful still is the report from historian Jeremy Bonner, who attends Trinity Cathedral and, like the parish, appears to have a foot in both the Episcopal and Anglican camps.

Here are some highlights of the convention gleaned from the above reports:
  1. The diocese accepted a number of parishes from outside the physical limits of the historic Diocese of Pittsburgh. Parishes were accepted into the diocese from North Carolina, Ohio, and California.
  2. Diocesan clergy will be in the Anglican Church in North America, but they will remain in the Southern Cone to maintain their nominal inclusion in the Anglican Communion.
  3. Archbishop Duncan took a minor pay cut. With assets tied up in litigation, money is tight.
  4. The diocese’s fund for legal expenses has received $300,000 “from someone not associated with the diocese,” according to Bonner. Another $200,000 in 1–2 matching funds has also been made available.
  5. The dioceses is strongly committed to planting new churches.
  6. The diocese supports the current Anglican covenant draft, especially with the controversial Section 4 included.
  7. The diocese is strongly against abortion and perhaps only less strongly against contraception.
  8. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is now being called the “rogue diocese” by leaders of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Read the cited reports, especially Bonner’s.


  1. . . . received $300,000 “from someone not associated with the diocese”

    I'll bet you can follow the money all the way back to Newport Beach by way of IRD.

  2. The proposed budget for the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh shows $2,500 for legal fees. Yet the news reports say hundreds of thousands of dollars have been contributed for this purpose. Is it permissible to handle these funds “off balance sheet” ? If so, are donations toward this purpose tax deductable?

  3. I must admit that my prior ambivalence regarding anonymous donors is undergoing a major restructuring. I am coming around to the position that transparency is a good thing and secrecy is only good for hidden agendas, Satan's work. Follow the money and expose it to the light of day. If this enormous donation was not from IRD, then where?

  4. How much longer will the Post-Gazette continue to publish propaganda by Ann Rodgers on behalf of the Duncan diocese? At least Ms Rodgers no longer seems to be using the term 'remnant' to identify the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Episcopal Church. However, last Saturday's article in the Post-Gazette about the "travails" of the Duncan crowd was remarkably slanted. We are being told to feel sympathy for thieves who are being frustrated in their efforts to get away with stolen property. Ms Rodgers has never reported that the breakaway bunch wants to create their own church with stolen property, and has never explained the ownership of those assets, while suggesting that it is a horrible thing for the Episcopal Church to protect its property for present and future generations of worshipers. Prior to the break away, Duncan was obviously using diocesan assets as a piggy bank to support his empire building. The attempt by the Duncan group to take property is attempted theft, pure and simple. Ms Rodgers is also constantly working to legitimize the Duncan crowd. Through sheer repetition in article after article, she has attempted to create the conviction in the public's mind that the Episcopal Church has failed to uphold the traditional Christian teachings. She is simply repeating code words for homophobia and bigotry. The opinion by Judge James was clearly correct, and I cannot imagine that an appellate court will disturb that opinion. Yet all we get from Ms Rodgers is the Duncan fantasy view of the world.


Anonymous comments are not allowed. All comments are moderated by the author. Gratuitous profanity, libelous statements, and commercial messages will be not be posted.