The Pittsburgh Laity Speaks

An article in yesterday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described an open letter from laypeople in the Diocese of Pittsburgh supporting Bishop Robert Duncan in his efforts to remove the diocese from The Episcopal Church. (See “Episcopalians support break from church.”) The latest letter is a response to an earlier letter from 12 conservative Pittsburgh priests indicating that they are not going to leave The Episcopal Church. The Post-Gazette reported on that letter in its January 30 story “Letter shows rift among Episcopal conservatives.” The two stories are not equally newsworthy. That conservatives have strongly supported Bishop Duncan’s schismatic plans in recent diocesan conventions makes a declaration of support for him from Pittsburgh laypeople a ho-hum, dog-bites-man story. (Duncan’s proposals have generally been approved by conventions by something like 3–1 margins.) That self-identified conservatives would break publicly with Duncan, however, is a man-bites-dog story worthy of prominent placement in the morning edition.

What is going on, of course, is a battle to control the perception of how much support there is in the diocese for one position or another. It is also a battle to characterize the positions themselves. Although what the general public thinks is of limited importance, what clergy and laypeople in the diocese believe will be crucial in determining who will leave The Episcopal Church and who will be willing to fight over property when what appears to be an inevitable schism occurs.

That there are at least two contending parties has long been obvious. On the one hand, there are those who have consistently supported Bishop Duncan, his withering critique of The Episcopal Church, and his plans to wrest the Diocese of Pittsburgh, along with all its assets, from the church’s control. The leaders of this group include the bishop, Assisting Bishop Henry Scriven, and Canon Mary Hays. They have been strongly supported by most members of the Board of Trustees, Standing Committee, and Diocesan Council, as well as some prominent rectors and Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry faculty. Opposed to the bishop have been most of the clergy and parishioners of about a dozen parishes of various sizes, including some of the largest and smallest in the diocese. The opposition has rallied behind the efforts of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a Via Media USA alliance member, and Calvary Church, whose rector, the Rev. Dr. Harold Lewis, is regularly vilified by Duncan supporters for having brought a lawsuit against Duncan and other diocesan leaders in 2003 to prevent the improper alienation of Episcopal Church property.

The two obvious parties are usually called “conservative” and “liberal,” though these terms are certainly inadequate. Operationally, they might best be described as, respectively, revolutionary and loyalist, at least with respect to their attitudes toward The Episcopal Church. That is, one group disdains The Episcopal Church and is willing to destroy or wound it for the sake of its perception of truth, whereas the other group values the church and wants to preserve it. In this sense, the group usually called “liberal” is peopled by conservatives.

Usually, of course, “conservative,” in the religious sense, refers to people holding views typical of nineteenth-century Evangelicals. (This may be an exaggeration, but it is surely true that Duncan’s supporters, despite their rhetoric, do not “believe what Christians have always believed,” and they certainly do not exemplify the traditional Anglican preference for unity based on liturgy, rather than on doctrine.) In that conventional sense of “conservative,” it has long been clear that many adherents of this theological viewpoint are not revolutionaries and are not willing, for whatever reason, to abandon The Episcopal Church. These non-revolting theological conservatives have kept a low profile in the diocese, probably because their views lead them to regard their bishop with great ambivalence. Everyone has known that they are out there, yet there has been much speculation as to who was actually in this group, at least among the clergy. The revolutionaries wanted this group to join the revolution, and the loyalists hoped that its members would rally behind the barricades in the face of the insurgents.

The “liberals” in Pittsburgh are a mixed group, united by their support of The Episcopal Church. Some of these people, by nearly any measure, should be called liberal. Many people do not understand, however, that Southwestern Pennsylvania is a socially, politically, and religiously conservative enclave, and that churches such as Calvary, which is reviled for its liberalism, would seem decidedly middle-of-the-road if transported to another part of the country. No objective observer expects to see open communion or the blessing of same-sex unions in Pittsburgh Episcopal churches any time soon. Some very conservative people attend churches that have been adamant in their support of The Episcopal Church, and being progressive, as it is usually understood, is hardly a requirement for membership in Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh.

In other words, there are three significant parties in the Pittsburgh diocese—the insurgents, the enthusiastic loyalists, and the reluctant loyalists. The Episcopal Church is certainly more liberal than most Pittsburgh Episcopalians, and the loyalist camp that has just come out of the closet knows that its members are destined to feel somewhat uncomfortable and marginalized in their chosen church for the foreseeable future, no matter how “inclusive” that church is. Such is the fate of minorities, and no one has figured out how to change it. When the Pittsburgh schism actually arrives, I suspect that additional revolutionaries will get cold feet and join the reluctant loyalists, albeit reluctantly.

The New Letter

The letter from the Duncan-supporting Pittsburgh laypeople is posted on a new blog called “Pittsburgh Laity.” For convenience, and because it may disappear or be changed—the blog suggests that more names may be added over time—I reproduce the letter, dated February 8, below. You can find the currently posted version here. (The letter is relatively short, but it concludes with a long list of signatures.)

A Statement of Support for the Diocese and our Bishop

As committed laity within the Pittsburgh diocese of the Anglican Communion, we hereby publicly express our strong support for the godly direction of our Bishop, Robert Duncan, and for the strategy approved by delegates to our annual diocesan convention last November. It is not our bishop who is mistaken, but rather the interpretation of the twelve dissenting clergy that is skewed: our diocese is not separating from the Church, but can no longer travel with a national Episcopal body that is departing from its foundations. As a result, we are participating in a necessary realignment with biblical, catholic, traditional and evangelical Anglicans across the globe. Last November, delegates demonstrated an astounding show of support for this direction, a decision that was not hasty, but that came after nearly five years in which we waited for our national church to repent and to respond to the pleas of the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion. They did not, and since then have clarified the disturbing course to which they intend to hold—promoting a so-called “gospel” that is faithful neither to Jesus, nor to the
Holy Scriptures.

We are told that a major reason for the dissent of these twelve brothers and sisters from our Diocese is “the prospect of protracted court cases evolving from the diocese's realignment effort” (Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, January 30, 2008). We want to remind them and the public that the court cases came about because of suits against the diocese and officers of the diocese; our bishop did not initiate these suits. Indeed, with others who support him, he has done everything possible to defuse the situation outside of the courts. We are responding to an attack (an attack in secular court, forbidden in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians), not initiating it. In this response, the Diocese is preventing a take-over of parish properties by the national church: such actions protect not only the majority of parishes who agree with the direction of the Diocese, but also the parishes of those who have seen fit to dissent from the decisions of the annual diocesan convention. Perhaps clergy could have taken the “high ground” by recommending that Christians not defend themselves, and so be prepared to suffer loss for the sake of truth; this would have demonstrated integrity. However, it is unconscionable that the faithful be constrained, because of the fear and inconvenience of litigation, to continue in communion with those who preach and walk after a different gospel. For the sake of our children, our children’s children, and those to whom we deliver the good news, we cannot agree with those who would counsel us to maintain our ties with an increasingly apostate national church. We pray that in the coming year, even more laypersons will recognize the danger and folly of remaining in the punctured hull of the Episcopal Titanic.

We understand that faithful pastors who stand against the policies of the national church face hardship, including likely loss of position and full pension. As laity, we know that there are those who will attempt to take away the places where, in some cases, our families have worshipped for generations. Under the current threat, we understand the fear of those who do not want to move with the Diocese, though it grieves us that some of our brothers and sisters have given way to such fears. Even more, however, we applaud and honor our own bishop and those many other priests of this Diocese who are prepared, as our shepherds, to “put their life on the line.” They are acting as they are, not to be quarrelsome, but for the sake of truth and love for the worldwide Anglican communion-- especially for numerous courageous Anglicans in Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere, who are also standing against innovative departures from Christian life and faith.

No, Pittsburgh Diocese is not arranging to “leave,” but to stay. We intend to stay and be the Church that we have always been, believing and practicing as we have always done, with other faithful Anglicans across the world, with those of the past who paid for the truth with their lives, and with the apostles and ancient theologians who transmitted the knowledge of Jesus and the Triune God.

Edith M. Humphrey, Ph.D., Church of the Ascension (Oakland) and District 7 Delegate
William F. Orr Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Appointed Member of the Commission on Ministry, Pittsburgh Diocese

Dr. Leslie Thyberg,
Chair, Board of Examining Chaplains for the Priesthood, Diocese of Pittsburgh

Mr. Chris Thyberg
Director of Global Missions, American Bible Society

Dr. Jeanne Kohn, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Director of Music Ministries

Dr. Andy Kohn, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Gillis Harp, Ph.D., Grace Anglican Fellowship, Slippery Rock, PA;
Professor of History, Grove City College

Stuart P. Simpson, Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Deputy to Diocesan Convention; Deputy to General Convention
Board of Trustees, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
Board of Church Army USA

Ann F. Castro, Grace Church, Mt. Washington;
Adjunct Professor of Greek, Trinity School for Ministry

Robert G. Devlin, Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Senior Warden; Chancellor of the Diocese

Kenneth W. Herbst, St. Peter's Church, Butler, PA;
Lay Leader for Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo; Diocesan Standing Committee member

Marilyn Clifton Chislaghi, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Parish Administrator
Board of Anglican Frontier Missions

A. Michael Galbraith, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Alternate to General Convention, Member of Array, and on the Commitee for Donegal Property

Mary Ann Evankovich, St. Andrew's New Kensington and District 3 Delegate
Fourth Day Coordinator for Pittsburgh Cursillo Secretariat;
Member of the Diocesan Commission of Racism

Ann Dickinson, St. Stephen's Sewickley

Leslie Uncapher Zellers, St. Andrew's New Kensington

Tony Errico, St. Andrew’s New Kensington
Member of Vestry

Kenneth Clever, Holy Innocents, Leechburg
Previous vestry member

Pat Errico, St. Andrew's New Kensington

Gregory R. Campbell, St. Paul's Kittanning
Layreader and St. Paul's vestry member

Eric W. Cook
Organist and Choirmaster, St. Paul's (Kittanning)

Lois J. Ilgenfritz, St. Mary's, Charleroi

Charles T. Hach, St. Alban's Episcopal Church

Duane F. Ilgenfritz, St. Mary's, Charleroi

Gladys Bell, St. Mary's, Charleroi

William J. Bell, St. Mary's, Charleroi

Robin Capcara, Church of the Ascension

Jim Catlos, Holy Innocents

Kay Catlos, Holy Innocents

Jesse Catlos, Holy Innocents

Cindy Zimmerman, Somerset Anglican Fellowship

Lynda Miller Holy Innocents

Robert S. Smith, Holy Innocents, Leechburg, PA

Margot S. Smith, Holy Innocents; Leechburg, PA

Dr. Daniel C. Lujetic, Senior Warden, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Borough

Stephen B. Whipple, St. Stephen's Ambridge

Ellen Cappelli, St. Alban’s Murrysville

Guido Cappelli , St. Alban's Murrysville.

Tasso Spanos, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship

Wendy Scott Paff, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Marian M. Kreithen, Church of the Ascension, Convention Deputy, District 7
Altar Guild Directress, Lay Eucharist Minister and Visitor

Alexandra Tiel, Church of the Ascension

Brian Tiel, Church of the Ascension

Alan Komm, Church of the Ascension
Senior Warden
Diocese of Pittsburgh Celebrate 250

Timothy Podnar, Church of the Ascension

Cole Van Ormer, Church of the Ascension

Jay Gowdy, Church of the Ascension

Brian Mack, Church of the Ascension
Member of Vestry

Paige H. Forster, Church of the Ascension

Nancy B. Foster, Church of the Ascension

Agnes Green, Church of the Ascension

John K. Walsh, Church of the Ascension
Member of Vestry

Michael W. Luckett, Church of the Ascension

Brad Hgoz, Church of the Ascension

Nicole D. Mack, Church of the Ascension

Joelle Humphrey, Church of the Ascension

David Picking, Holy Innocents Episcopal Church

Katherine Picking , Holy Innocents Episcopal Church

Gordon Keith McFarland, Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg, PA
Member of Vestry

Alison D. McFarland, Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg, PA
Member of Diocesan Council & Deputy to Diocesan Convention

Andrea Paskorz, St. Andrew's New Kensington,
Member of the Vestry

Diane Kaufmann, St.Alban's, Murrysville

John Kaufmann, St.Alban's, Murrysville

Cyndi Taylor, St. Philips, Moon Township

Elaine P. Morehead
Ministry staff of Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship

Theresa T. Newell, D. Min., St. Stephen’s Sewickley
Diocese of Pittsburgh Standing Committee

Director of Travel-study, Trinity School for Ministry
Chairman, CMJ USA

Gloria J.Clever, Holy Innocents, Leechburg
Former secretary to Bishop Henry Scriven

John W. Polczynski, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, New Kensington, PA
Junior Warden

Julia A. Polczynski, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, New Kensington, PA
Member-Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo Community

William F. Roemer, St. Stephen's Sewickley
Deputy to General Convention;
Trustee of Trinity School for Ministry;
Treasurer of Anglican Communion Network;
Board Member of Anglican Relief and Development Fund

Gale Wilson, St Paul's, Kittanning and Delegate of District 3
Parish Ministry Committee

Georgette Forney, St. Stephen’s Sewickley
President, Anglicans for Life
Co-founder, Silent No More Awareness Campaign

James D. Bradley Sr., St. Pauls Kittanning
Member of Vestry

Paul Stirbis, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Boro, District 8

Bernice Rowe-Stirbis, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Boro, District 8

Travis S. Hines, Church of the Savior, Ambridge,
M.Div., Director, Center for Distance Learning,
Trinity School for Ministry Postulant for Holy Orders.

Linda Banks Grissom, St. Alban’s Murraysville

Amy V. Campbell, St. Paul’s Kittanning,
Parish Secretary; Assistant Treasurer

Tina Wurschmidt, Shepherd’s Heart
Worship Pastor and Lay Leader

Sarah M. Kwolek, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Interim Music Director

Mark A. Kwolek, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Interim Music Director

Peter Frank, Church of the Nativity, Crafton

Amy Maddalena, Church of the Ascension, Oakland

David F. Black
Member Diocesan Board of Trustees
Growth Fund Committee
Pittsburgh Episcopal Foundation/Chaplaincy Endowment Committee

Richard Jernigan
All Saints’ Church, Brighton Heights

A. Dwight Castro, Ph.D.
Professor of Classics
Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA
Member of the Vestry of Grace Church, Mount Washington

Sue Crary
Treasurer, Church of the Ascension

Allison S. Burgan
Member of the Vestry of Fox Chapel Episcopal Church

Aaron Pelot, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
University of Pittsburgh Student

Margaret Whitacre, Grace Church, Edgeworth
Organist and Vestry Member

Patricia Kriever, Grace Church, Edgeworth
Former Senior Warden

Thomas S. Hay
St. Stephen's Sewickley
Former Treasurer & Vestry Member
Former Member of the Board of Trustees of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
Senior Investment Officer, The Pittsburgh Foundation

Beth Kriever, Grace Church, Edgeworth

John Kriever, Grace Church, Edgeworth

Nicolaas G. Storm, Esq.
St. Philip's Episcopal Church, Moon Township
Former Senior Warden
Delegate Diocesan Convention
Member Commission on Ministry

Jonathan Cagwin, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Coalition for Christian Outreach, Staff Member

Chad Whitacre, Grace Church, Edgeworth

Jessica Whitacre, Grace Church, Edgeworth

Shannon Hach, St. Alban's Episcopal Church

Seth Whitacre, Church of the Savior, Ambridge

Roger Maddalena, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

David E. Berklite
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Treasurer, Vestry Member

Robert L. Forrest, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Mary Lou Herbst
St. Peter's Butler
Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo Secretariat
Servant Community Coordinator

Ruth A. Fitzpatrick, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Jane R. Flaherty
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Cursillo Secretariat Member, Pre-Cursillo Coordinator

Michelle D. Everson, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
University of Pittsburgh student

Marilyn German
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Mt. Lebanon
Former member of the Parish Council, Lay Eucharistic Member and Parish Archivist
Former Diocesan Delegate, District 5
Former member of Diocesan Council and Array
Former Diocesan Archivist

Fritzie Hess, St. Stephen's, Sewickley

Davida van Mook, Fox Chapel Episcopal Church

Ron James, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Sally James, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Kathleen Hartle, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

John Stevenson, St. David's Church
Former Senior Warden and Treasurer
Former member of the Diocesan Board of Trustees

Dorothy A. Fleming, St. Martin's Monroeville
Member, Pittsburgh Cursillo Community

Robert M. Fleming, St. Martin's Monroeville and District 8 delegate
District Representative on Diocesan Board of Trustees
Lake Donegal Common Life Committee and Donegal Program and Events Commission
Former Vestry member, Former Senior Warden, Former Treasurer
Former Pittsburgh Cursillo Secretariat

Della A. Crawford
St. Thomas Church in the Field, Gibsonia

Richard Bates
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Sewickley

Bill Klingensmith
Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg
Senior Warden

Carolyn Smail
Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg

Linda Roemer
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Sewickley

David M. Ball
St. David's Church, Peters Township
Junior Warden
Treasurer
Diocesan Board of Trustees

Curt Henry
Christ Church, Greensburg
Former Junior Warden
Senior Warden
Member of Diocesan Council

Wendi Richert
Christ Church, Greensburg
Projection Team Member

Allan Rathbone, St. Martin's Monroeville

Yvonne Rathbone, St. Martin's Monroeville
Treasurer

Howard Yant
Christ Church, Greensburg

Esther Yant
Christ Church, Greensburg

Truth Topper
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Vestry member

Howard Finney
Christ Church, Greensburg
Chairman of Worship Committee
Head Usher

Bettyann Finney
Christ Church, Greensburg

Dana Walker
St. Andrew's Church, New Kensington

William Topper
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
District 1 Delegate
Member Diocesan Council

William C. Knapp
St. James Church, Penn Hills
Worship Leader

Linda F. Knapp
St. James Church, Penn Hills

Donna Evans
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

Chris M. Evans
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

Diana Yuhanjak
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

Peter Yuhanjak
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

John J. Means Jr.
Trinity Episcopal Church, Washington
Vestry member

Gretchen F. Means
Trinity Episcopal Church, Washington
Former Vestry member

Bill Lutes
St. Mary's, Charleroi

Mary Lutes
St. Mary's, Charleroi

Mrs. John H. Morgan
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Mrs. Barbara Baur
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Virginia Fitzsimmons
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Member of the Vestry

Glenn Crytzer
Verger, St. Peter's Butler
Postulant for Holy Orders, Diocese of Pittsburgh

Lynn Crytzer
St. Peter's Butler

Laura Crytzer
St. Peter's Butler

Margaret L. Prather, D.O.
St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, New Kensington

Teri Dillon
The Church of the Good Shepherd
Treasurer, Vestry Member, Daughter of the King
Past Secretary for Good Shepherd and Trinity Cathedral

Ralph Hiller
St. Peter's Brentwood

Lois Hiller
St. Peter's Brentwood
Former Vestry, Altar Guild & Search Committee

Yoseph Barhem
Member of Church of the Good Shepherd (Anglican/Episcopal)
Binghamton, NY

Mark Stevens
St. Christopher's, Cranberry Township

Susan Milligan
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Edward J. Milligan
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Avin Fernando
Bishop's Committee Member
Seeds of Hope Mission Fellowship

Ian Sadler
Trinity Episcopal Church
District 10 Representative on the Diocesan Council

James S. Moore
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Delegate Diocesan Convention
Member Diocesan Board of Trustees
Member Board of Church Army

Carmen Moore
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church

Kathryn Smith
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Rebecca Tickner
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Frances Hartzell
St. Andrew's, New Kensington
District 3 Alternate

Gerald Hartzell
St. Andrew's, New Kensington

Tom Meyers
St. Andrew's, New Kensington

Ron Yadrick
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Judy Yadrick
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Ann R. Steenkiste
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Former Vestry Member
District 3 Deputy
EFM Coordinator

Jason Smith
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Area Director, Young Life Beaver County

Margy Baker
Previously Eucharistic Minister, St. George's Waynesburg
Currently member St. Christopher's, Cranberry Township

Jason Toman
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Intervarsity Christian Fellowship staff

James J. Vevers
Grace Church, Mt. Washington

Ellen R. Stolpe
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Bill Driscoll
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Candidate for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Pittsburgh
M.Div. student at Trinity School for Ministry

Kim Driscoll
Church of the Savior, Ambridge

The attacks against The Episcopal Church have been led by clergy, especially bishops. The prominent leaders of that movement in Pittsburgh have largely been clergy, although the Episcopal Church loyalists have both clergy and laypeople prominent among their leaders. It is, therefore, refreshing to hear from laypeople in Pittsburgh dissatisfied with their church. (It may take longer for the reluctant loyalist laypeople to organize themselves.) The new letter is endorsed by approximately 175 people (and counting, I’m sure they would assure me). It is interesting to see how the signers have identified themselves. (Or not. Peter Frank, who is Communications Director for the diocese, fails to note the fact, perhaps out of modesty.) Nineteen people hold significant official positions in the diocese. (I discounted many minor offices. All these counts are approximate, by the way.) Three are former office holders or staff members. Eight seem to be paid staff members in their respective parishes; one is the spouse of a staff member; three are relatives of conservative clergy. Six are associated with Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. Two are from “Anglican” congregations in the diocese but already out of The Episcopal Church. One lists himself as being in New York. Forty-eight are from Church of the Ascension, a large church led by the Rev. Jonathan Millard, an insurgent rector who has argued passionately for leaving The Episcopal Church and taking Ascension’s property with him. (Millard made his case for this at a workshop at the November convention and had a letter published in the Post-Gazette on the subject on Friday.) Several very small congregations are represented by ten or more members.

I do not mean to belittle the commitment of anyone who has signed this letter, but no one should think that it represents a cross-section of the laity of the diocese, which the title “Pittsburgh Laity” might suggest. Many of these people are closely tied to Bishop Duncan, to Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, or to churches led by especially vocal insurgent clergy. That the letter was initiated at Church of the Ascension is obvious from the fact that more than a quarter of the signatures are from that parish.

Analysis

What can be said about the content of the letter? To begin with, its purple prose is painful to read. The rhetoric is overblown and emotional. This is not a letter intended to win converts through its logic, and I suspect that it is intended to rally the troops and denigrate the 12 clergy who dared to defy the movement. Some choice phrases for which I would deduct points on a freshman paper: “punctured hull of the Episcopal Titanic, “those of the past who paid for the truth with their lives,” “godly direction of our Bishop,” and “suffer loss for the sake of truth.” Ironically, of course, while claiming the moral high ground and standing for truth against all odds, even in the face of death, these people seem most interested in leaving The Episcopal Church with their parish property intact. Such willingness to sacrifice is touching!

Looking past the rhetoric, I will mention just a few of the many defective arguments and deceptions prominent here. We must begin at the first sentence, where we encounter the phrase “Pittsburgh diocese of the Anglican Communion.” The “committed laity” signing the letter want to remove the diocese from The Episcopal Church, yet they cannot even bring themselves to admit that the diocese is in The Episcopal Church! The opening paragraph goes on to attack first the judgment of the “twelve dissenting clergy,” followed by The Episcopal Church and its “so-called ‘gospel.’” As it happens, however, the letter never uses the phrase “Episcopal Church”; like rabid Republicans who insist on referring to the “Democrat Party,” the signers cannot even bring themselves to write the name of the church they so despise. (I suppose it is, to the signers, “the church that cannot be named.”) “Anglican Communion,” on the other hand, occurs three times, and members of its (other) provinces are described as “faithful” and “courageous.” Some of us have always thought that the hallmark of Anglicanism, however, was respect for differences. That Anglican virtue is absent here.

A surprisingly large fraction of the letter is devoted to railing against lawsuits, both the existing action brought by Calvary Church and future litigation likely to be brought by The Episcopal Church against seceding congregations intent on retaining parish property. While asserting that the use of secular courts is forbidden by biblical injunction, the letter maintains that it would be “unconscionable” to be constrained by this injunction if it meant that signers could not protect “their” property. Incredibly, the letter argues that Bishop Duncan is “preventing a take-over of parish properties by the national church,” including the properties of parishes that have supported The Episcopal Church. Such parishes have no fear in that regard, however, since they freely acknowledge that the property is held in trust for The Episcopal Church. Calvary would like nothing more than for The Episcopal Church effectively to “take-over” all diocesan property. That is the situation its lawsuit was initiated to protect!

Finally, the paragraph I find most offensive is the last one, where the letter repeats the now trite argument that the diocese is not leaving, but staying. (The bishop usually expresses this by saying that The Episcopal Church has left the diocese; the diocese is not leaving The Episcopal Church.) This is, as they say in England, utter rubbish. I am actually hard-pressed to figure out what logic is being used here, but I am sure it is defective. It may be that, if you are part of an organization and that organization changes over time, even through legitimate processes, you are free to leave the organization and—as we used to say in the ’60s—liberate its property. Perhaps the argument is that, if you are part of an organization you have come to dislike, you are free to declare yourself part of another organization you like better and—as we used to say in the ’60s—liberate its property. Either way, the argument seems a justification for theft, which, if I remember, is enjoined elsewhere in the bible.

I hope that “Pittsburgh Laity” will offer more edifying fare in the future, but I hold out little hope either that it will do so or that it will broadly represent the many Pittsburgh Episcopalians who attend church regularly in the vain hope that their church—their diocese, at any rate—will not self-destruct in the near future.

Postscript (2/11/2008): My tabulation of characteristics of signers of the “Pittsburgh Laity” letter was done rather informally on a few sheets of blank paper. Someone else reports having used both a spreadsheet and a diocesan directory. This procedure yielded a count of 14 clergy spouses. Moreover, I failed to note the two officers of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (Anglican Communion Network) who signed the letter.

What to Call Her

NPR carried a report yesterday of another school shooting, this one at a Baton Rouge vocational school. The reporter rather clumsily explained that the “gunman” in this instance was female. As gender roles in society continue to blur, more obscure holes in our language are exposed.

If a man wielding a gun is a “gunman,” should not a woman in the same role be a “gunwoman”? One would think so, but this is not a standard word, and it seems not only unfamiliar, but clumsy. “Gunman” is short and powerful in a way that “gunwoman” is not. “Shooter” might have been a better word to use, though I suspect that, even in the mind of a confirmed feminist, this does not immediately conjure up a Bonnie Parker.

My first thought upon hearing the report, was that the proper term was “gun moll,” but that actually means something else, usually a (male) criminal’s girlfriend. Bonnie was actually more than just a gun moll to Clyde Barrow. And were Clyde just a pretty boy along for the ride, we wouldn’t have had a name for him either.

What should we call Latina Williams, the 23-year-old who shot two female students before using the gun on herself? I will offer some suggestions, though each one is defective in one way or another; some might be considered quite objectionable. I write them as phrases, but the phrases could be combined into single words: “gun girl,” “gun maid,” “gun gal,” “gun bitch,” “gun dame,” “gun lady,” “gun lass,” “gun babe,” “gun broad,” “gun chick,” “gun doll,” “gun she,” or, most improbably, “gun frail.” Most of these terms rely on slang terms and seem no better than “gunwoman.” Perhaps “gun she” (“gunshe”?) has most potential in this group, though I’m probably being influenced by the familiarity of “banshee.” “Gunlass” might work, if the accent is on the first syllable. Another approach might be using a standard suffix for a female actor. We could balance “shooter” with “shooteress,” “killer” with “killeress.” Somewhat more fancifully, we might coin the term “gunneress.”

Of course, we could write off “gunman” as sexist—like “mailman”—and use “gunperson,” providing the sex of the miscreant more directly, as in the phrase “female gunperson.” I’m not personally keen on this approach, actually. Any other ideas?

What Didn’t Happen

That the Title IV Review Committee concluded that the former San Joaquin bishop, John-David Schofield, has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church should surprise no one. Even the fact that the three senior bishops of the church (Frade, Lee, and Wimberly) agreed to Schofield’s inhibition by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is hardly a shock. Concluding that Schofield has broken with the church that consecrated him a bishop is really a slam dunk, despite Schofield’s gobbledygook letter regarding his present status in The Episcopal Church. If what he has done is not abandoning the communion of this church, then Canon IV.9 might as well not exist.

The surprise, however, is that no charges have been brought forward against my own bishop, Pittsburgh’s Robert Duncan, or against the Bishop of Fort Worth, Jack Iker. Each of the bishops was warned by the Presiding Bishop that his anticipated actions at his diocesan convention last year would make him vulnerable to an abandonment charge.

The causes of action laid out in Canon IV.9 are indeed quite limited, and, although Schofield has surely abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church under any reasonable reading of the canon, the cases against Duncan and Iker, though strong, are admittedly less compelling. No doubt, successful presentments could be brought forward against either Duncan or Iker—the causes of action for a presentment are considerably more numerous—but the presentment process, which is lengthy and costly, is clearly an ordeal the church would rather avoid.

Given that the Presiding Bishop warned all three bishops, it is difficult to believe that the Review Committee was not asked to bring similar charges against the bishops of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth. What happened? Was the committee unconvinced that they had stepped over the Canon IV.9 line? Did the committee conclude that either or both of them had abandoned the communion of the church, but the three senior bishops were unwilling to agree to inhibition? Is, in fact, inhibition necessary if the Review Committee believes that the abandonment charge is valid? (The canon seems to expect inhibition, but there is some question as to whether charges can be brought before the House of Bishops if the senior bishops do not go along with the Presiding Bidshop’s pronouncing inhibition.) Knowing what didn’t happen, we would like to know what did.

What is in the future for Bishops Duncan and Iker? I suspect that there will be no more talk of disciplining them before the House of Bishops votes to consent to the deposition of John-David Schofield. If the bishops confirm the judgment of the Review Committee, it could be argued that there is no reason to bring presentments against Duncan or Iker, as abandonment charges against them would surely be successful once their dioceses follow the course of San Joaquin in “leaving” the church. Presentments brought forward today would take years to resolve, whereas Canon IV.9 could rid the church of these troublesome bishops in a little more than a year from now.

The downside of this calculus, of course, is perhaps more apparent to the Episcopalians of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth than it is to those who work at the Episcopal Church Center, serve on the Review Committee, or are bishops of Southeast Florida, Virginia, or Texas. We would prefer not to be subjected to the same uncertainty, disruption, and (no doubt) legal actions that are being visited on the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin. We had hoped to be spared that pain. Unless something dramatic happens that would convince whoever needs to be convinced that Duncan and Iker have abandoned the communion of this church before the Pittsburgh and Fort Worth conventions, the inevitable pain and suffering of faithful Episcopalians in those two dysfunctional dioceses will, apparently, be written off as collateral damage.

Welcome to my church...

The Episcopal Church has been much in the news in the past few years, but it is difficult to be thankful for all the publicity. Whereas, historically, The Episcopal Church has been notable for its ability to accommodate diverse points of view, even on important matters of theology, one could easily get the impression from reading the New York Times or the Washington Post that we are an especially contentious lot. Well, perhaps, we’ve always been that, but we have usually stayed together in spite of our passions.

The prospects for staying together in my own diocese, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, however, are not good. Our bishop, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, has made it clear that he wants to remove the entire diocese from what he sees as a heretical church. That isn’t going to happen, of course, if only because many Pittsburgh Episcopalians are quite happy with our church, if not with our angry bishop and his angry followers.

Thinking that people in our diocese needed to hear from local Episcopalians who are content to be in The Episcopal Church, an ad campaign called “Welcome to my church...” was launched in October. The ads, which have appeared in the weekly church sections of three newspapers in Southwestern Pennsylvania, each picture an Episcopalian talking about his or her church and what it means to him or her personally. Each ad features a different church. There have been seven such ads so far, and more are on the way.

Here is sample. This one features my own church, St. Paul’s, in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania:


A new Web site has just been unveiled that shows all the ads and, in addition, contains links to information about The Episcopal Church. You can click here to have a look. Perhaps a similar campaign could build goodwill for The Episcopal Church in your diocese.

“Schism”

The big news in The Episcopal Church (and, I suppose, in the Anglican Communion) is the Diocese of San Joaquin’s alleged “realignment” to become a diocese of the province of the Southern Cone. This was engineered by the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC, though not without with a good deal of arm-twisting within the diocese and conspiring with other “orthodox” bishops bent on schism and empire-building outside it.

The ugly events in Fresno this past weekend inspired me to write one of my occasional limericks today. I reproduce “Schism” below. For an illustrated and annotated version, click here to read and read about the poem in the poetry section of Lionel Deimel’s Farrago.

Schism
by Lionel Deimel

There once was a bish in the valley

Who asked his convention to tally

Its votes to secede

That would make his church bleed

Causing right-wing schismatics to rally.

Of course, I don’t think my modest effort here can compare to the new hymn composed by Susan Russell, “Come, Thou long expected Schism.” I’m not sure what tune Susan had in mind, but the Charles Wesley hymn “Come, thou long expected Jesus” is paired in Hymnal 1982 with Stuttgart. Appropriately, Wesley’s is an Advent hymn, as is Susan’s, in a manner of speaking.

Quick Monday Morning Thoughts

In light of the Diocese of San Joaquin’s reputed transfer from The Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone this past weekend, I find myself wanting to write long essays on a variety of related subjects. Since I do not have time to do that just now, permit me to offer a few quick takes on the situation.

First, I am wondering why Bishop Schofield has not yet been charged with abandoning the communion of The Episcopal Church under Canon 9 of Title IV. Surely, this time, no one can argue that an abandonment charge is being misused. This is exactly the sort of circumstance for which it was designed. (The charge would be brought against Schofield, of course, for his actually leaving, not for his fomenting schism, which, though an appropriate allegation under Canon 9, is a rather more abstract one.) The Presiding Bishop warned that an abandonment charge would be the result of Schofield’s following through with his plans. It is time for +Katharine to act. In fact, it is long past the prudent time to act.

An interesting question that has been bandied about on several blogs (on Preludium, for example) is the status of the now Bishop-elect of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence. Lawrence has been canonically resident in San Joaquin, and Bishop Schofield has declared that all clergy in the diocese are in the Southern Cone. He did, however, give them the option of staying in The Episcopal Church or taking time to think about it. Perhaps Lawrence’s canonical residence is in ecclesiastical limbo at the moment, but I would argue that he should immediately declare what province of the Anglican Communion he wants to be in. He cannot be in the Southern Cone and be consecrated Bishop of South Carolina.

What really set me off this morning, was an item on The “Lead”:

“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has not in any way endorsed the actions of the Primate of the Southern Cone, Bishop Gregory Venables, in his welcoming of dioceses, such as San Joaquin in the Episcopal Church, to become part of his province in South America,” a spokesman for the Anglican Communion said.

Such a courageous declaration! The Archbishop is clearly more interested in evading personal responsibility for the current mess than he is in preserving anything that looks like order in the Anglican Communion, which has become an ecclesiastical Wild West under his “leadership.”

The big question, from my own vantage point in Pittsburgh, of course, is whether we are seeing the future of our my diocese unfolding in California. I hope not.

Now what?

This weekend, I watched the convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin on Anglican TV, as, with some jubilation, it changed its constitution and canons and declared itself free of The Episcopal Church. At the same time, the diocese declared that it had joined the Southern Cone, a small, South American province of the Anglican Communion. Now what?

The ENS story on the convention repeated the now-familiar message:

If Schofield is considered to have abandoned the communion of the church, he would have two months to recant his position. Failing to do so, the matter would be referred to the full House of Bishops. If the House were to concur, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. [There seems to be a lapse in editing here, as the story is supposed about only the Diocese of San Joaquin.] Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

This all sounds so cleverly well thought-out and straightforward, but is it really?

Consider Step 1: if someone thinks Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church—am I the only person who concluded hours ago, without an iota of doubt, that this has certainly happened now, if not years go?—charges could be brought against the bishop and, if the three senior bishops of the church and the Presiding Bishop agree on the matter, Schofield could be inhibited, which prevents him from performing episcopal acts, such as confirmations, but does not prevent him from administrative actions, such as moving trust funds offshore. Inhibition is not necessary for the House of Bishops to consider whether Schofield is guilty as charged, and one might ask if it really even does any good. If charges are pressed, the church is likely to hear from the likes of Archbishops Venables, Akinola, et al., and their words are likely to be—how shall I put it?—unkind. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury can be relied upon to make another of his now-famous ill-conceived statements guaranteed, likely inadvertently, to make the situation markedly worse.

And Bishop John-David Schofield will, I assure you, say that he is beyond the reach of the discipline of The Episcopal Church because he is a bishop in good standing in the province of the Southern Cone. He is not going to pay the slightest attention to the Presiding Bishop, Title IV Review Committee, or any vote of the House of Bishops.

The Episcopal Church has only one recourse: sue. It will, and the case will likely drag on for a long time. The outcome, irrespective of which side is in the right—I have no doubt that The Episcopal Church is right here—will, for years, perhaps, be in doubt. The publicity will not be especially good for evangelism.

Step 2 is interesting: organize a new diocesan convention to reconstitute a Standing Committee. (The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin will, presumably, be running the diocese that continues to be headed by Bishop Schofield.) In this step, the church will be winging it, constitutionally speaking. By organizing a new convention, will the church be admitting that the diocese has (or, even, could) leave the church? Under whose rules will the convention operate: under those of the departed diocese or under some other rules? The church must argue, I think, that the real Diocese of San Joaquin has been hijacked and must, somehow, be returned to its rightful stewards. Meanwhile, we are likely to have what might best be described as “Dueling Dioceses of San Joaquin.”

Step 3, appointing an assisting bishop, presumably with the concurrence of the newly constituted Standing Committee, should be easy enough, but the appointed bishop seems unlikely to have much of a flock. The convention votes were, to put it delicately, overwhelming.

Step 4, suing, as noted above, should probably be Step 1 or, to provide more rationale for the action, Step 2.

The question that must be asked is why has the church not acted against Bishop Schofield before now. Charges against the bishop, before today, could not so easily have been ignored. Of course, abandonment of the communion charges were brought against Schofield last year and were dismissed. A presentment could have been brought against the bishop, which, though it involves rather messier procedures, also allows greater latitude in the charges. In any case, The Episcopal Church has a bigger mess to clean up today than it did yesterday.

Of course, I am especially interested in the situation in San Joaquin, as the Diocese of Pittsburgh is planning to do exactly as San Joaquin has done. The Presiding Bishop threatened Bishop Duncan—as, in fact, she did Bishop Schofield—about moving forward with constitutional changes just before the 2007 diocesan convention. He was unmoved, and the diocese, on November 2, did what Duncan asked it to do. It is now December 8, and the Presiding Bishop has not acted. Is the church going to wait until Pittsburgh follows San Joaquin into the South American sunset?

A Pittsburgh Lament

My friend and fellow parishioner at St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, Jane Little, has written a reflection on the current situation in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I want to share “What to Do with a Bishop,” but, particularly for those outside of the diocese—and, perhaps, for those who do not know Jane—some words of introduction will be helpful.

Readers likely know that Pittsburgh is known as a “conservative” diocese, although this has not always been so. The Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan is the present diocesan bishop, and he has not only moved the diocese to the right—very much with the help of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (TESM), I hasten to add—but he has also been working to remove the diocese completely from The Episcopal Church, an impossibility, in the same sense that removing money from banks at gunpoint is an impossibility.

It is less well known that Bishop Duncan came from a family perhaps best described as dysfunctional, and that he was elected bishop somewhat unconventionally. He had been brought into the diocese as Canon to the Ordinary, largely because the then bishop, Alden Hathaway, needed administrative help. Duncan was generally seen as having performed well in this capacity and having been supportive of all parishes, irrespective of their theological or liturgical orientation. It was, therefore, something of a surprise that the search committee that identified candidates for Hathaway’s successor did not include Duncan among its candidates. Moreover, the committee was obstinately silent regarding what was widely seen as a slight. Duncan was nominated from the floor of the convention and, eventually, was elected.

Jane mentions the Diocese of Chile in her piece, as well as its province, the Southern Cone. It has been suggested that the Southern Cone could become a haven for dioceses, such as Pittsburgh, that want to secede from The Episcopal Church. Not long ago, the Diocese of Chile was a companion diocese of Pittsburgh. Jane and her late husband Chuck were on the so-called Chile Committee. (The Committee was led by the Rev. Mark Lawrence, now bishop-elect of South Carolina.) The Chile Committee not only traveled to Chile, but also arranged for clergy from Chile to study at TESM. Whereas many in the diocese would see the Southern Cone’s willingness to “shelter” the Diocese of Pittsburgh as the fruit of Pittsburgh’s faithfulness and generosity, Jane and others see it as a case of biting the hand that feeds you.

And, now, a few words about Jane: Jane is speaking from what, in Pittsburgh, is a minority perspective. She is unsympathetic to the bishop’s theological position and unsympathetic to his methods. Jane has a Baptist background—American Baptist, she is quick to point out—and only began attending Episcopal churches after meeting her husband-to-be. Her friends sometimes refer to her as Jane the Baptist because, whenever it seems that The Episcopal Church might experience an ecclesiological meltdown, Jane reminds us that she has a church to which she could return. Not all of us feel that we have the same sort of safety net.

In contrast to my own preference for methodical, rational analysis, Jane responds to circumstances from the heart, often seeing patterns and connections she is at a loss fully to explain to others, but which seem to capture valuable insights and to offer paths forward that the more “logical” among us might miss. Oddly, while taking a “big-picture” approach in her own analysis, she is also very good at finding subtle technical flaws in the works of others (well, in what I write, anyway).

Jane has had a long-running private correspondence with Bishop Duncan, which displays a generosity of spirit and pastoral concern at which I can only marvel. Her latest thoughts about the diocese seem devoid of her usual optimism, however, and I think that “What to Do with a Bishop” is best seen as a lament, as she is neither asking a question nor answering one. Actually, I’m not sure that the title is well-chosen, but Jane’s intuitive choices often turn out to have a deeper significance than is immediately apparent. Finally, I should point out that her quotation of Matthew 25:40 is from memory and does not quite match any available translation of the Bible.

Jane’s meditation is below. If you have any comments, feel free to send them to me, and I will forward them to Jane.

What to Do with a Bishop

There are no words to tell you this terrible story of how a man, here nurtured, has turned against his church, and taken his own followers with him, as a final salute to his own accomplishments. He came to us, not chosen by the committee that had worked so hard to get it right, but presented by the brother of the head of that committee, from the floor, for those feeling sorry for this man who had come here, worked for a bishop, and wanted the office at whatever cost. No one knew then what a cost it would be to bring in a man of great personal ambition, coming out of a sad childhood, to offer us all up in his own name. He even went to the Southern Cone for support and sanctuary in his misconduct, the Southern Cone to which we had offered, in Chile, so much love and support for its educational requirements and needs.

This wickedness is against the Lord, who said, “If you do it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto me.” Knowing this, they went ahead, they go ahead, and in all deliberateness, rip apart the church, for God, they say. How dare they blaspheme in this way! They have convinced themselves that they are right, when they are dead wrong, and anyone can see how wrong it is to rip apart a church, to throw out a segment of the church, and claim to stand in God’s place! There will be punishment for this, but of course, we know not when or how.

We pray for guidance from one day to the next, until we get through this awful time of brother destroying brother. This man cannot now even save face, although he was told again and again to save face while it was still possible. He insists on going through to the bitter end, which may indeed be more bitter than he had ever anticipated. God save us all, that all may turn to right, in Jesus name, now and forever.

Jane Little
Thanksgiving Weekend 2007

The Faith Once Delivered

At the recent annual convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh held in Johnstown, Pa.—reports of the convention can be found here and here—Bishop Robert Duncan read his letter in answer to the warning he had received recently from the Presiding Bishop. The letter, in essence, was as follows:

Dear Katharine,

Drop dead.

+Bob

His actual words were:

1^st November, A.D. 2007

The Feast of All Saints

The Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori

Episcopal Church Center

New York, New York

Dear Katharine,

Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them.

Pax et bonum in Christ Jesus our Lord,

+Bob Pittsburgh

Mark Harris, on his blog, called this letter “classic Duncan.” I have to agree.

Almost everything about this letter is irritating, but, for me, one of the most objectionable aspects of it is the use of the phrase “the Faith once delivered to the saints.” This phrase, usually without the needless capitalization of “faith,” is constantly used by the so-called “orthodox” to suggest, succinctly, that their version of Christianity is the one true faith, the Christian faith as Jesus himself meant it to be understood.

The phrase, of course, comes from the third verse of the first (and only) chapter of the Letter of Jude:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Authorized Version)

Jude is short and passionate, and its basic meaning is clear. Christians are to defend the Gospel against those promoting false teachings, “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 4b). Much of the rest of the letter is about what these “ungodly men” will do and how they will be punished for it. Nevertheless, the nature of the false teachings the author of the letter is railing about is not clear, and the letter appears to be something of a generic encyclical warning the saints to be vigilant against those who would mislead them.

Scholarly consensus places the composition of Jude toward the end of the first or in the first quarter of the second century CE. Conservatives favor an earlier date, sometime in the last half of the first century. Whenever this letter was written, the epistle can be described a being early church literature, and therein lies a problem.

Bishop Duncan’s implication—the usual implication when “the faith once delivered” is invoked—is that the writer believes what Christians have always believed. Since the writer of Jude does not explicate “the faith,” however, we can only speculate about what he understood by the term. What is clear, however, is that much of the theology that became orthodox Christianity, that is, the consensus that emerged from the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, was developed only after the Letter of Jude was written. Moreover, to the degree that conservatives insist on an earlier date for the writing of Jude, we know even less of what “the faith” refers to, even if it might be closer to the actual teachings of Jesus or the Apostles.

Of course, Duncan and his followers really don’t care what Jude’s writer meant; they are just latching onto a good sound bite. To them, “the faith [or Faith] once delivered to the saints” simply means what they believe and what they think everybody else should believe. That it includes, among other things, a good deal of medieval accretions and modern anti-Enlightment nonsense is rather beside the point.

The next time you hear someone piously pontificate about “the faith once delivered to the saints,” remember that the proper response is to ask, “Yes, and what was that?” You might even cite Jude 1:19, which says about the false teachers, “It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions” (NRSV).

Congratulations, Bishop Lawrence

Episcopal News Services reported Monday that the Rev. Canon Mark Lawrence has received sufficient consents for him to be consecrated Bishop of South Carolina on January 26, 2008. I offer him my congratulations, and commend the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina for its attention to detail in its campaign to collect the necessary consents this time around.

Clearly, Bishop-elect Lawrence finally made statements that seemed clear enough to those who had to vote on the matter to the effect that he was not becoming Bishop of South Carolina with the intention of removing that diocese from The Episcopal Church. I sincerely hope that he will be a bishop who acts more like Bishop John Howe, of Central Florida, than like my own Bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan, or Lawrence’s current bishop, John-David Schofield. Though hopeful, I am not exactly sanguine. Bishop Lawrence will be watched carefully.

Since Lawrence is going be be consecrated a bishop, was the effort to deny him consents useless? I think not. Most importantly, the church learned that it can choose not to grant consent for a consecration. The matter was widely discussed, and some standing committees even publicized their reasons for withholding consent following Lawrence’s first election. One imagines—hopes, anyway—that Lawrence has actually rethought his views on the proper course of action for the Diocese of South Carolina. In any case, that Lawrence will now be consecrated belies the lamentations from the right that an “orthodox” priest can no longer become an Episcopal bishop. Finally, the mechanics of the consent process—still a rather opaque enterprise—came under some scrutiny and was brought more into conformity with the actual canons of the church.

As far as I know, Lawrence has not retracted his earlier statements (see “No Consents: A Crucial Test for The Episcopal Church”) or explained how he reconciles them with his now seemingly more charitable view of The Episcopal Church. I, for one, would appreciate such an explanation.

---

There have been a lot of stories about Mark Lawrence in the past year, and so many of them have been illustrated with the same recent photograph. (I have been a part of the crowd; see my own piece on Lawrence from last December here.) That photo is a fine portrait, but I, for one, am getting a bit tired of it. Therefore, I decided to illustrate this post with the image of a younger Mark Lawrence. The photo, above is from the mid-80s, during Lawrence’s days in Pittsburgh. I got it from a friend who served on a committee with the bishop-to-be.

One Vestry Takes a Clear Stand

At its annual convention on November 2–3, the Diocese of Pittsburgh will move toward or away from schism. A big question now is which parishes are determined to stay within The Episcopal Church (TEC) and which are determined to leave. Based on actions such as declining membership in the Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes and suing the bishop, about a dozen parishes form the core of support for TEC in the diocese, though even some of these parishes occasionally have seemed unwilling to involve themselves in controversy or to be wavering and in danger of switching sides. Most of the remaining five dozen or so parishes seem to be in play—they have much sympathy for Bishop Robert Duncan and his grand designs, but they fear internal divisions, lawsuits, uncertainty, and even permanent exile from an “apostate” Episcopal Church. Clergy of all stripes are meeting over lunch with unaccustomed frequency to discuss what they are going to do.

The vestry of my own parish, St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, in response to the diocese’s initiating a very upsetting discussion about its future, decided to appoint a parish-wide committee to evaluate possible parish responses to moves by the diocese. This was a very wise move; the parish was coming to the end of a rector search, and the vestry had a lot on its plate. Although St. Paul’s was never in serious danger of falling under the sway of the bishop, some people were under the impression that it was, a belief encouraged by the reluctance of parish leadership to get involved in the ongoing power struggle. Many parishioners believed that St. Paul’s had been unreasonably deferential to the sensibilities of the handful of members with strong sympathies for the bishop, and this had fostered widespread, if only moderate, anxiety in the congregation.

I was pleased to be placed on the advisory committee, which has been meeting weekly since it was appointed. The committee began by characterizing what was happening in the diocese and identifying areas of concern for the parish. One of the most pressing needs was deemed to be reassurance of parishioners that St. Paul’s would stay in TEC. Drafts of a possible statement were written and sent to vestry members, but committee members were divided as to whether making a statement was an immediate need or whether a statement should be held for release at some unspecified opportune time.

The committee’s last meeting before the September vestry meeting was on September 12. On September 11, Bishop Duncan revealed his breathtaking, if illegal, plan to remove the diocese from TEC. At its meeting the next evening, the committee was unanimous in its belief that a statement needed to be made to parishioners immediately. The committee sent its revised recommendation to the vestry, which, five days later, appointed a committee to draft a statement based on one offered by the committee. The statement was distributed at services the following weekend and read from the pulpit.

The statement, on St. Paul’s letterhead, can be read here. The text is also reproduced below:

September 21, 2007

Where St. Paul’s Vestry Stands

We, the members of the Vestry of St. Paul’s, want to make clear to the parish where we stand regarding The Episcopal Church. Our position has not changed on this matter; however, given recent news reports and communications from various sources, we believe it vital to reiterate that position.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is an integral part of The Episcopal Church, not an independent entity that can be removed from it by the actions of any body, person, or persons other than the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. Our intention is that St. Paul’s will remain a parish of The Episcopal Church and its Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

It is our sincere and prayerful hope that our diocese will reconcile with and remain within The Episcopal Church. However, in response to any attempt by diocesan leaders or Diocesan Convention to remove the diocese from The Episcopal Church, the Vestry of St. Paul’s will work diligently to keep the parish in The Episcopal Church. To do so, we will work with remaining members of Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, with the Presiding Bishop, and with other church leaders to restore our diocese to institutional and spiritual health.

We recognize that faithful members of this parish may hold differing and even seemingly incompatible theological views. Not only are we untroubled by this, but we consider such theological diversity to be one of the greatest strengths of authentic Anglicanism. We honor and value that Anglican tradition at St. Paul’s.

It is our intention that St. Paul’s remain a faithful and loving community in which we worship together and discuss our beliefs and concerns without rancor. We pray that such an example will remind others of the reconciling power of Jesus Christ and will help our entire diocese through the difficult times that lie ahead.

The Vestry of St. Paul’s

Bishop Salmon’s Solution

The September 25 statement from the House of Bishops turned out to be something of an anticlimax. It contains hardly anything new, other than support for the Presiding Bishop’s latest dead-on-arrival plan for dissenting dioceses like mine (Pittsburgh). More interesting was a report to his diocese from Bishop Ed Salmon, recently retired from, but now temporarily heading, the Diocese of South Carolina. (Because the diocese’s Web site has the irritating habit of putting important current material on its home page without indicating where it can be found permanently, I have reproduced the whole report below. At least temporarily, the report can be found here.)

A Report on the New Orleans House of Bishop

from Bishop Edward Salmon

In the interest of clarity, I would like to report to the clergy and people of the Diocese of South Carolina on the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. I am particularly concerned that you hear directly from me as the distortion in the media and on blogs is profound.

From my perspective this was probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful.

I asked for and was granted permission to speak to the whole House beyond any contribution I made in the various debates.

The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury was helpful in getting us to look at where we are as a Church and a Communion; and what that says about our ecclesiology.

Profound pain was experienced when members of the ACC Steering Committee and the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East addressed the House. They told us how the decisions made by the Episcopal Church had affected their mission and ecumenical relationships destructively in their lands. It was a moving experience.

Just as devastating was the address from Bishop Jeffrey Steenson explaining why he was resigning his orders and becoming a Roman Catholic. We are good friends and have worked closely together.

We then had a report giving us the list of congregations leaving the Episcopal Church in part or whole for other Anglican jurisdictions and the names of these jurisdictions. A number of the clergy were well known to me. Even the loss of one because of our conflict is a painful matter for me at the end of my ministry. It is a matter of great sorrow.

In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us.

I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:

1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.

I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.

--The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., is acting Bishop of South Carolina

What caught my attention in Salmon’s remarks was his third reason for not supporting the statement released by the bishops: “It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.” In other words, we should throw out all the rules we have agreed to live by and do what Bishop Salmon and his allies think we should do. What an extraordinary thing to say! The good bishop believes that disregarding the church’s constitution and canons is necessarily part of the solution to our present troubles. In fact, an unwillingness to abide by established rules is part of the problem, perhaps even the problem plaguing the Anglican Communion.

Even before Gene Robinson was elected bishop in New Hampshire—and increasingly frequently since—we have had Anglican provinces consecrating erstwhile Episcopal priests as bishops in their own churches, so that they can poach Episcopal Church parishes, contrary to ancient tradition. We have primates arrogating power to themselves with no mandate from the Anglican provinces. We have bishops changing their diocesan constitutions in ways prohibited by the constitution of the General Convention. Bishops, such as my own, who have vowed “to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church” are conspicuously undermining its authority and conspiring with bishops of churches with which The Episcopal Church is not in communion to subvert our church. The same bishops who are expected to “share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world” share in deliberations with other Episcopal bishops only when it suits them, picking and choosing sessions of the House of Bishops they will and will not attend, and eschewing the fellowship of their colleagues so aggressively that they will not even deign to stay in the same hotel with them. Likewise, we have parish priests encouraging hatred of The Episcopal Church among their parishioners and urging vestries to abandon The Episcopal Church and steal its property. Priests who disobeyed church canons or have been accused of serious civil crimes are escaping discipline though their acceptance into other Anglican jurisdiction by bishops disdainful both of The Episcopal Church and of its canons.

And Bishop Salmon believes that we should not be constrained by adherence to our constitution and canons! Is it not a great coincidence that those urging the showing of grace and the putting aside of rules are the very people advancing their own agendas through their arrogant disobedience? We do not need, as Bishop Salmon suggests, less law; we need more. We need an Anglican covenant that regulates the transfer of clergy from one province to another and prohibits incursions into geographic regions served by other provinces. We need a curb on the arrogance of primates who believe that they are God’s avenging angels on earth. More than anything, we need presentments against priests and bishops who display disdain for the church law they have sworn to uphold.

Since when did being in ordained ministry relieve people of any obligation to act as civilized members of human society?

The Church Waits

After conferring with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican leaders in New Orleans Thursday and Friday, the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has had the weekend to work on responses to demands by the primates and entreaties by Rowan Williams. It does not seem too dramatic to say that the future of The Episcopal Church and that of the Anglican Communion might be changed dramatically by today’s deliberations by American bishops, the product of which is expected sometime tomorrow.

Archbishop Williams seems to have framed the choice open to the bishops as one of preserving the unity of the church or of opting for justice for gays and lesbians. He clearly favors unity. He is wrong.

Suggested responses from Episcopal Bishops seem to be all over the map, from Pierre Whalon’s proposal that offers a strong defense of what The Episcopal Church is and has done, to John Howe’s idea, which seems to be to split the church and the Communion now, in order to avoid doing it later. The Living Church reports that a draft response is in preparation.

As the church waits to see what our bishops will say, I want to express two unrelated concerns.

Replacing the Presiding Bishop

My first issue arises from my being a via-media Episcopalian in a rabidly militant-traditionalist diocese. Pittsburgh is one of a handful of dioceses that have asked for “alternative primatial oversight.” It is clear that bishops such as Duncan, Iker, and Ackerman are not going to get what they want in this regard, and they will probably reject (or perhaps have already rejected) anything less that might be urged on them by the other bishops. I assert, however, that no plan at all should be offered to them, and I am not pleased that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori keeps searching for a new plan each time the last one is dismissively rejected by Bishop Duncan and his allies.

If individual parishes are unhappy with their bishop, they can apply for DEPO, the plan established by the House of Bishops in 2004. DEPO is surely imperfect; its goal is reconciliation, though it is hardly specific enough to inspire confidence that that goal is likely to be realized. Moreover, a parish participating in DEPO is likely to contain members who are not displeased with their bishop but who are likely to be unhappy with the bishop assigned to them under DEPO. What of them? At least, in many locations, a parishioner in a parish applying for DEPO who is not dissatisfied with the bishop quite possibly has the option of attending a nearby parish of similarly satisfied Episcopalians.

But what is “alternative primatial oversight” all about? In Pittsburgh, many parishes—most, probably—are happy with their bishop; he is, in fact, something of a cult leader here. Bishop Duncan is already supplying these parishes just what they want, self-righteousness, served with gratuitous disdain for The Episcopal Church and its Presiding Bishop. Given that the Presiding Bishop exercises virtually no “oversight” over either diocesan bishops or ordinary parish churches, why would such people want “alternative primatial oversight,” which could only place another bishop over this self-satisfied arrangement? Then, there are parishes like my own, where the bishop is usually mentioned with rolling eyes and sighs of exasperation. My fellow parishioners are not pleased with our bishop, but we can at least be consoled by the existence of a sympathetic Presiding Bishop leading The Episcopal Church. If some “oversight” scheme is imposed on us, we cannot simply go to the Episcopal diocese across the street. We are trapped in a way a parishioner of a minority view may not be trapped when a parish asks for DEPO.

It is time to recognize that the purpose of the church is to minister to ordinary Christians, not simply to self-important diocesan bishops. If Bishop Iker cannot abide female priests, why should the church indulge his sensibilities if to do so disenfranchises those under his care? Why should Bishop Duncan’s loathing for The Episcopal Church result in my being alienated from the church I joined and the church I love? When both Iker and Duncan consented to their consecrations, they know what church they were pledging to nurture and support. If they cannot do that, they should resign or, as a last resort, be removed.

Unity or Justice

Just as the church does not exist for bishops, neither do people exist for the church. Instead, the church exists for the people. (Jesus did not found the Church, of course, so ecclesiology largely has to be developed without much direct guidance from the recorded words of our Lord. This viewpoint is surely suggested by passages such as Mark 2:23–28, however.)

It is commonplace to observe that the Church moves slowly—perhaps, even, should move slowly—accepting change over decades or centuries. According to any theory that sees such glacial movement as normative, keeping peace within the church is more important than the lives of individuals or, for that matter, of truth itself. (Galileo immediately comes to mind.) Apparently, the present Archbishop of Canterbury subscribes to such an inhumane theory. I do not, and it is difficult to believe that the God of love would ask us to sacrifice his children for his Church. Justice delayed, so the saying goes, is justice denied, and both the Old and New Testaments seem quite clear about the need to seek justice for the downtrodden of society.

If our bishops have to choose either the unity of the church—a small branch of the Church, actually—or justice, why should they not choose justice? They would, thereby, improve the lives of actual persons who would otherwise be disdained or actively harmed by the church. Moreover, many gay and lesbian Christians are actively working in an ordained capacity and are contributing to the building up of God’s kingdom.

And what if bishops make the other choice, choosing “unity”? In the most benign view, they will be selling out their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters for, at best, a temporary peace in the Communion. For many bishops, this choice will necessarily come at the price of their personal integrity, as it will mean denying their own understanding of the Gospel for the sake of others’ they sincerely believe to be mistaken. In fact, the sad Jeffrey John affair suggests that, if the bishops give in to the “orthodox” primates, they simply will be inviting demands for endless additional concessions. The unity of the Communion cannot be saved through surrender; perhaps it cannot be saved at all. Our only hope for true unity is standing up for what we truly believe and asserting that Anglican comprehension is more likely, ultimately, to lead to truth than is power politics. The bishops should stand up for what they truly believe, trusting that Gamaliel’s advice (see Acts 5:33–39a) still applies: “[I]f this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

Pray for our bishops.

Enquiring Minds Want to Know

In “Agreeing to Agree,” I referred to a Boston Globe story that had Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan saying that he intended to try taking his entire diocese out of The Episcopal Church. Duncan’s canon, Mary Hays, in a September 10 meeting, categorically denied that the bishop had made the statement. (See “‘... the bishop didn’t say that.’”)

In a sense, it does not matter whether Bishop Duncan made the statement or not; his actions speak louder than his words, and he clearly is trying to take the entire Diocese of Pittsburgh out of The Episcopal Church. (See “Something Dramatic.”)

For the record, however, a number of people wrote to the Globe reporter inquiring as to what, precisely, Duncan said in Nairobi. The interview on which the story was based was recorded, and Michael Paulson went back and listened to his recording. He supplied the following exact quotations:

1. “The reality is, of course, we’re realigning.”
2. “We won’t go anywhere, but we’ll associate, as these congregations have, as dioceses, with other provinces. We have a number of offers.'’

The quotations suggest how difficult it is to quote people engaged in ordinary speech. The only quotation in the Globe story from Duncan was “We are realigning,” which elevates an idiomatic utterance to something a bit more formal. The second statement by Duncan is, syntactically, very complex and hard to understand. Moreover, its meaning is only clear now that we see what Duncan wants to do to the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s constitution. It is easy to see why the reporter paraphrased and simplified what the bishop said.

What is interesting and new is this: “We have a number of offers.” Presumably, this refers to offers by Anglican primates to take the Diocese of Pittsburgh into their jurisdictions.

From whom, I wonder, have these offers come? The Episcopal Church would like to know. The Archbishop of Canterbury would like to know. How fortuitous that they will be able to ask Bishop Duncan about the matter at the House of Bishop’s meeting in New Orleans in a few days!