Convention Report

The annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh concluded yesterday afternoon. There really is little of interest to report. (In what, under Bob Duncan, was a very contentious diocese, this is not a bad thing.) The most important action taken was the passage of a resolution to begin the search for a new bishop. The revised resolution was amended to make it absolutely clear that nomination by petition will be in order only after the Nomination Committee has announced its minimum of four candidates. Various elections were held, including those for General Convention deputies. I would characterize our new lay deputies as somewhat liberal and our clergy deputies as somewhat conservative. (The diocesan Web site contains information about convention events and more should be posted soon.)

My favorite aspect of the convention was the presence of a banner representing the Episcopal Church shield that was prominently displayed during business sessions. (See photo at right.) It would have been inconceivable that such a banner would be displayed during the latter years of the Duncan episcopacy.

I might have been inclined to write more about the convention, but Jeremy Bonner, on his blog—see his two posts here and here—has done a reasonable job of presenting an overview of the event. I would quibble with a few of his statements, though not many.

The one sour note sounded during the convention came from Dr. Bonner himself. Trinity Cathedral, where the convention was held, is in the uncomfortable (and ultimately untenable) position of being the cathedral church both for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Its chapter includes both Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of North America members. Curiously, Dr. Bonner appears to be a deputy to the conventions of each of these churches, though he is apparently not an Episcopalian. No one questioned his credentials, though I certainly thought about doing so myself.

Anyway, when the convention began discussing the local canonical changes needed to accommodate the recently revised Episcopal Church canons dealing with clergy discipline, Dr. Bonner gave an angry little speech telling Episcopal laypeople that the new Title IV puts their clergy at risk of unfair prosecution, a notion promoted by the Anglican Communion Institute, whose apparent mission is to find fault with everything the Episcopal Church does. Neither the laypeople present nor the reputedly at-risk clergy seemed moved by these remarks, and the canonical changes were approved with no further discussion and virtually no opposition.

Everyone except Dr. Bonner seems to have gone home happy.

Another Revised Convention Resolution

Along with the revised Resolution 2 to be presented this weekend at the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh—see “Pittsburgh Standing Committee Responds to Concerns”—a substitute for Resolution 1 was also sent to deputies via e-mail today.

The resolution was originally presented as follows:

Resolution 1.

Resolution on Episcopal Church Asking and Local Parishes

Resolved, that the Diocesan Convention strongly encourages all parishes to give or work toward restoring their commitment to the missions asking of the Episcopal Church for leadership, program and ministry.

Explanation:
St. Paul’s letters reveal the early practice of individual churches giving tithes to support Christian churches and ministry in other places (1 Cor. 16, 2 Cor. 8). In addition, the tithe of a church to Christ’s mission outside itself provides a godly example for each member in their own personal tithes. And finally, our diocese wishes to support the program and ministry of the Episcopal Church, which has been deeply involved in such ministries as hurricane relief to the Gulf Coast, service to the poor of inner cities and earthquake relief to Haiti, and which has covenants to support missionaries in Mexico, Liberia and the Philippines.

Sponsors:	The Rev. Canon Dr. Harold T. Lewis, Calvary Episcopal Church
	The Rev. Jeffrey Murph, St. Thomas Memorial Episcopal Church

According to the e-mail from the diocese

The revised Resolution 1 encourages parishes to restore their commitment to the missions asking of the Episcopal Church. The original language of the resolution itself has not changed, however a new rationale statement is offered by sponsors Harold Lewis+ and Jeff Murph+.

Whereas this statement is substantially true, it is not literally true, as can be seen in the substituted resolution:

Resolution 1.

Resolution on Episcopal Church Asking and Local Parishes

Resolved, This 145th Diocesan Convention strongly encourage all parishes to give or work toward restoring their commitment to the missions asking of the Episcopal Church for leadership, program and ministry.

Rationale: The Diocesan Convention of 1996, in a decision reflective of the divisions rife in the diocese at the time, passed a resolution to allow parishes to redirect to other recipients funds normally earmarked for The Episcopal Church missions asking, reflecting divisions rife in the diocese at the time. With a new sense of unity and commitment to the Episcopal Church, it seems altogether fitting and proper for us to express our tangible support to the Episcopal Church as well. Moreover, St. Paul’s letters reveal the early practice of individual churches giving tithes to support Christian churches and ministry in other places (1 Cor. 16, 2 Cor. 8). In addition, the tithe of a church to Christ's mission outside itself provides a godly example for each member in his or her own personal tithes. And finally, our diocese wishes to support the program and ministry of the Episcopal Church, which has been deeply involved in such ministries as hurricane relief to the Gulf Coast, service to the poor of inner cities and earthquake relief to Haiti, and which has covenants to support missionaries in Mexico, Liberia and the Philippines.

Sponsors:	The Rev. Canon Dr. Harold T. Lewis, Calvary Episcopal Church
	The Rev. Jeffrey Murph, St. Thomas Memorial Episcopal Church

I will comment briefly on what this resolution is all about below. First, I want to make some remarks about the substitute text itself.

To begin with, the resolution has changed. Though the meaning is the same, the new text is gratuitously different. (I count 6 distinct changes, and I see no pressing reason to have made any of them.)

The explanation has been helpfully expanded, as not all readers would have understood the background from the original explanation. Again, however, there are gratuitous differences. (Why has the “Explanation” become a “Rationale”?) The most obvious quirk of the new justification is the repetition of the phrase “divisions rife in the diocese at the time.” (Perhaps the prefixed words “reflective of the,” in one case, and “reflecting,” in the other, are meant to mitigate the impression that the paragraph has been badly edited. Suffice it to say, the paragraph is badly edited.) Even ignoring the repetition, the first sentence is a mess. Better would be something like the following:

In a decision reflective of the divisions rife in the diocese at the time, the Diocesan Convention of 1996 passed a resolution to allow parishes to redirect funds normally earmarked for The Episcopal Church missions asking to other recipients.

Another symptom of bad editing is the presence of both “The Episcopal Church” and “the Episcopal Church” in the text. I could go one, but what’s the point? (Sorry if this seems petty, but surely someone could have cleaned up this mess!)

Now to the substance of Resolution 1. As the rationale suggests, more than a decade ago, a diocese that harbored much hostility to The Episcopal Church voted to allow parishes to pay to other charitable causes that part of their assessment that otherwise would have gone to support the general church. Eventually, the diocese itself chose not to send money for the support of The Episcopal Church, although some parishes continued to send money directly, bypassing the hostile judicatory.

I had assumed the practice of diverting money from The Episcopal Church would end when the diocese split in 2008, but some of the parishes that stayed in the diocese were among those that were not supporting the church. I believe that, if parishes are going to be in The Episcopal Church, they have an obligation to help pay for the church. That said, I think there is movement toward undoing the errors of the past. No doubt, some of the money being paid to organizations would be sorely missed if suddenly diverted to the general church. Parishes are going to have to work this out.

That this resolution does not demand an immediate end to the diversions acknowledges, I think, that the transition to normality may not be as simple as it sounds. Significantly, the resolution is sponsored by what are viewed as a very liberal and a very conservative priest. Surely, that is a plus and a characteristic that will make the resolution difficult to defeat (or even speak against).
Too bad that the explanation of the resolution is not better written.

Pittsburgh Standing Committee Responds to Concerns

In two recent posts, “Episcopal Election Plan Gets Chilly Reception” and “Additional Thoughts on the Plan to Select the Next Bishop of Pittsburgh,” I wrote about Resolution 2, the resolution that, if passed at this weekend’s diocesan convention, will set in motion the search for the next bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Controversy over the resolution centered on three aspects of the plan proposed by the Standing Committee. Under this plan,

1. Nominations by the Nomination Committee and nominations by petition would occur concurrently;
2. Nomination by petition would be easy, as few signatures were to be required;
3. Which candidates were nominated by which process would be kept secret.

Actually, only the first and third properties were specified by Resolution 2. The number of signatures needed to nominate by petition was only stated in the explanation of the resolution, but it was clearly the intention of the Standing Committee to require only six signatures.

Members of the Standing Committee seemed quite content with their plan and were surprised at the criticism it received at pre-convention hearings. Nonetheless, to their credit, they met Thursday night to reconsider the episcopal search plan, in part, no doubt, to head off a nasty floor fight whose outcome could not be predicted. The result of Thursday’s consultation was a revised version of Resolution 2 that has just been sent to deputies via e-mail. (Apparently, policy decisions were made Thursday night, but it took some time to achieve final wording. According to the revised resolution itself, however, it was approved October 7, 2010.) As I am writing this, the revised resolution is not yet on the diocesan Web site. You can read it here.

In the new plan, each of the most distinctive features of the original proposal has been modified. Most notably, the parallel nominating processes by petition and by committee are gone, replaced by processes that run successively. The Nomination Committee will announce its contributions to the slate, after which nominations can be made by petition. Petitions will require more supporters, including lay, non-deputy supporters, and signatures will have to come from at least three, not just two, parishes. In particular, petitions will require four canonically resident clergy and six laypersons in good standing in the diocese, three of whom must be convention deputies. Three weeks will be allowed for the submission of petitions.

Something not completely obvious is that the Nomination Committee will, at the end of its deliberations, release only the names of nominees, probably along with their current positions. This represents an effort to maintain a level playing field. Detailed information about all nominees, however nominated, will be released together after background checks have been completed and all supporting information has been delivered to the Nomination Committee.

This last quirk is something of a mixed bag but probably does a good job of balancing competing objectives. Members of the diocese will have to do a little digging to figure out whether the slate coming out of the Nomination Committee is balanced (or, more likely, contains someone they think they could support enthusiastically). In the age of the Internet and unlimited long-distance, this is an easier task than formerly, but it does require special vigilance on the part of clergy and laypeople in the diocese.

The Standing Committee did not address—not in its revised Resolution 2, at any rate—what the Nomination Committee might do if it knows negative information about a candidate nominated by petition (and, possibly, rejected explicitly as a candidate by the committee). The committee members will, I hope, take some useful lessons from the last episcopal election and act for the greater good of the diocese, rather than standing on some arbitrary, predetermined ethical “principle.”

In the end, the convention cannot micromanage the episcopal search process. The Standing Committee and the committees it creates will surely face challenges that have not been anticipated, and the diocese must trust them to make reasonable decisions without undue constraints imposed at the beginning of the process. Thus, the convention should not be upset that all the details of the search process are not incorporated into the resolution proper. I’m sure the Standing Committee will be given grief if the search process is modified along the way without reasonable justification.

I suspect that at least some members of the Standing Committee feel that they worked hard to write Resolution 2 and believe they were unfairly criticized for their work. Some may even have entertained thoughts that the diocese has demonstrated that it is not yet ready to elect a new bishop. Actually, I believe that what has happened in the past two weeks is very encouraging. The Standing Committee, trying very hard to avoid the problems of the past and create a fair process, gave designing an episcopal election process its best shot. When the people of the diocese found the proposed process wanting—it matters not whether or not they were being a bit paranoid—the Standing Committee listened and tried honestly to respond to the perceived difficulties. If that doesn’t increase everyone’s confidence that we can all work together for a better Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, I don’t know what would.

Will We Act with Integrity?

I don’t think there is much enthusiasm in The Episcopal Church for the proposed Anglican covenant. That is not to say that I am certain that the General Convention will reject it. I think, however, that if deputies and bishops vote with integrity, the covenant will indeed be rejected. Alas, our experience in passing B-033 in 2006 is worrisome.

A couple of days ago, Jim Naughton posted an essay on The Lead from Bishop Chris Epting’s blog about the covenant. Epting’s essay elicited quite a number of comments. I was particularly struck by a comment from Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D. He wrote, in part

It [B-033] was coercive and counter to our sense of right from the very beginning, but we adopted it to keep the peace, which end it accomplished not at all. To me, this [the covenant/covenant process] seems just like another big B033, a way of extorting a promise of altered behavior from us. Do we really intend to “stop” doing everything that might upset someone in the Anglican Communion? Is that how we see Jesus command to us? “Verily, verily I say to you, don’t do anything to cause a controversy, but always do whatever keeps everyone from getting upset, no matter whether you believe it to be really right or wrong.” If Paul had taken that choice little piece of advice, I don’t think that the gentile Christian church would even exist today.

If anyone had any doubts about which way our church is headed, no matter what happens in the Anglican Communion, the consecration of Mary Glasspool should have put those doubts to rest. Dr. Shy has asked the right question here: “Do we really intend to ‘stop’ doing everything that might upset someone in the Anglican Communion?” Clearly, the answer to that question is “no.”

Deputies to the 2012 General Convention should follow their consciences, give the covenant a thumbs down, and let the chips fall where they may. We should not even sugar-coat a resolution with statements of how much affection we have for our fellow Anglicans and how much it pains us to cause them distress. They have caused us infinitely more distress. It is time for The Episcopal Church to say, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”

Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.

Additional Thoughts on the Plan to Select the Next Bishop of Pittsburgh

A few days ago, I wrote about the discussion at the first pre-convention hearing regarding the resolution setting out the ground rules to be used for searching for the next Bishop of Pittsburgh. (See “Episcopal Election Plan Gets Chilly Reception.”) Apparently, the two subsequent hearings were also spirited in their discussion of Resolution 2, the resolution proposed for adoption at the October 15–16, 2010, convention. There was less consensus at those meetings, however, about the wisdom of the proposal of the Standing Committee.

In fact, the Standing Committee is going to meet later this week to revisit Resolution 2. Others in the diocese are discussing possible changes that might make the resolution acceptable to more people. Meanwhile, I have been thinking about the Standing Committee proposal and would like to offer additional thoughts on our situation and on where we might want to go from here.

What Went Wrong?

I should begin by pointing out that there is a good deal of anxiety about the episcopal election process because there is a strong consensus in the diocese that something went wrong the last time we selected a diocesan bishop. I was a deputy to the convention that elected the Rev. Canon Robert Duncan, so I have some first-hand insight into what happened. I have also talked to others who were involved, and, although I may not be in a position to write the definitive history of that election, I suspect that many in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, even those with whom I often disagree, will have few quibbles with at least the broad outlines of my analysis.

Robert Duncan was nominated from the floor at a 1995 special convention and eventually was elected bishop, defeating all the candidates proposed by the nominating committee. (Few readers of this blog need ask why that outcome was unfortunate.) Duncan was canon to the ordinary at the time, and there was a widespread feeling that his coming to the diocese had done much to rescue Pittsburgh from the depredations of the administratively challenged diocesan bishop, Alden Hathaway.

But what, exactly, went wrong? Not everyone agrees here, certainly not on the relative significance of various events. Did the nominating committee, operating by consensus, fail to provide a diverse and exciting slate of candidates? Certainly, a lack of enthusiasm about the candidates presented by the committee made it easier to turn to Duncan, someone widely known throughout the diocese, as a possible bishop. The committee had considered and rejected Duncan as a candidate. What did its members know, and why did they keep that knowledge secret? There is even reason to believe that they realized that failing to propose Duncan as a candidate risked having him nominated from the floor and elected with the benefit of a substantial sympathy vote for his having been, as we might say now, disrespected.

And yet, the committee members were perniciously silent. In selecting candidates, they certified that, by some criteria, those persons were qualified to be bishop. If the committee members had reason to think Duncan unqualified, did they not have an obligation, once Duncan became a nominee, to say what negative information about him had been discovered in the course of their work? (Or, at the very least, what reservations they had?) After all, deliberations were in the Committee of the Whole, and outsiders were excluded. Committee members could have even “leaked” what they knew without having to announce it to the entire convention. Was the silence of the committee the fatal mistake in the election process?

What is probably not well known outside the diocese is that Bob Duncan did not appear to be strongly partisan; he certainly evidenced no obvious antipathy toward The Episcopal Church. I suspect that most of the people who encountered him in the diocese in those pre-election days would have been hard-pressed to characterize Duncan as liberal or conservative. Instead, he seemed genuinely interested in having every parish succeed at whatever it considered its mission to be. To many, that was an attractive quality in an episcopal candidate. Having been nominated from the floor, however, deputies had not had the benefit of being able to ask Duncan questions qua episcopal candidate, nor could they compare his performance in Q&A sessions to that of the other candidates. How important a factor was that?

Some of those who managed the nomination and election of Duncan almost certainly had a pretty good idea of what they were doing and what direction Duncan’s episcopate would take. Others, I suspect, were duped by Duncan’s performance as canon to the ordinary and wronged victim of the nominating committee.

There is virtually no sentiment in the diocese now for allowing nominations from the floor. That Duncan would be so nominated in 1995 was not widely known, and many deputies were ruffled by the development and were then caught up in the emotion of a convention loosed from its moorings. Was allowing such a nomination the fatal flaw in the system?

Fixing the Problems

At the recent hearings, members of the Standing Committee asserted that they want to make the process of selecting our next bishop as transparent as possible. There is no reason to disbelieve this declaration, but neither should the diocese be willing to accept their initial proposal, particularly after they have told us that no diocese has ever used a procedure like the one they are suggesting. Perhaps there is a reason for that.

What everyone wants, I think, is a process designed in such a way that whatever problems marred the last episcopal election cannot occur or are unlikely to occur this time around. How that desire manifests itself as we consider the details of the electoral process may depend in part on how significant we feel particular problems were last time. It is possible that some members of the diocese are looking to design a process that somehow encourages the election of a person to their liking, however understood. Thus far, however, I see little evidence that people are trying to game the system or to create a system that can be gamed. I think people are genuinely looking to create a fair system likely to present the diocese with a slate of candidates in which everyone can find one or more persons they can support wholeheartedly.

The election process proposed by the Standing Committee has some obvious virtues—the lack of nominations from the floor and the insistence on the use of a consultant, for instance. One wonders if the Standing Committee wasn’t trying too hard, however. In an attempt to give even small minorities a chance to put a candidate favored by them on the ballot, the proposed rules, arguably, make it much too easy to clutter the ballot with improbable candidates, a situation that can introduce a disconcerting element of chance into the election.

Consider some specifics.

Issues Raised by Resolution 2

The most surprising feature of the process set out in Resolution 2 is the simultaneous nomination by committee and by petition. While the Nomination Committee is soliciting names of potential bishops, vetting them against some desired profile and checking their backgrounds, three clergy and three lay deputies from at least two parishes can, by petition, force a name to appear on the ballot, subject only to a background check. (Resolution 2 is ambiguous, by the way, as to whether the clergy or both the clergy and lay deputies must be drawn from at least two parishes.) What are the virtues and deficiencies of this system?

The parallel-mode nomination process—this is what I will call running the two methods of nomination at the same time—saves time, though it isn’t clear that we need to be in so much of a hurry. It is “inclusive,” in that it makes it relatively easy to get someone on the ballot if you are willing to do a little work—very little, it turns out. (I suspect that, by the time the convention passes a resolution to begin a bishop search, any petition process will require more than six signatures.) From the outset, the process relieves the anxiety some might feel as to whether a candidate of their choice might get on the ballot. Because the Nomination Committee need only run background checks on candidates advanced through the petition process, the parallel-mode process saves the committee work, likely a good deal of work that it might otherwise have to do to research candidate backgrounds.

It has been suggested that if one knows of a candidate one genuinely believes would make a good Bishop of Pittsburgh, one needs to act on that knowledge in some effective way, and the parallel petition process makes that possible. The process might even increase the diversity of the slate. Waiting until after the nominating committee announces a slate to accept petitions makes a candidacy so initiated seem, at least to some people, like a bit of an afterthought. Moreover, such a candidacy is necessarily distinguished from one predicated on the work of the nominating committee, which could reduce the credibility of the candidate.

I have already enumerated disadvantages of the parallel-mode nomination process, but I will repeat them here:

1. Particularly because the ballot is not to distinguish candidates by nomination mode, the process creates two classes of nominees, one of which has been subject to considerably more scrutiny than the other. The process encourages nomination by petition if at all possible, simply because that assures nomination.
2. The requirement that candidates not be identified by mode of nomination hardly represents transparency. Rather, it obscures what some would consider to be important facts. (It is unclear that the distinction could be kept secret, in any case.)
3. The process favors candidates within the diocese, who are likely to have an easier time being nominated by petition.
4. The process suggests a distrust of the nominating committee. Given the diocese’s history, we would do well to encourage trust, rather than distrust.

Additionally, the parallel-mode process provides no recourse once the slate, consisting of those nominated by one mode or the other, is announced. If, for example, people put their faith in the committee, restraining what will be a nearly irresistible temptation to nominate by petition, and the committee produces a dreary slate of candidates, the diocese will be painted into a corner, and the convention might even be forced to reject all the candidates and start the process over.

Although some have suggested that there be no nominations by petition, I think that most people would view the need for a petition process as a given. Even the best nominating committee can overlook or under-appreciate an excellent candidate. Given the widespread belief in the diocese that the last nominating committee bears some—perhaps even most—of the responsibility for the diocese’s having made a terrible choice of bishop, the safety net represented by some other means of putting a person on the ballot would seem an essential element of any credible episcopal election procedure.

If nomination by committee and nomination by petition are not to proceed in parallel, they must run serially. Before anyone is nominated, a profile must be drawn up that characterizes the diocese and its needs in a bishop. Perhaps this is to be done by the Nomination Committee, although Resolution 2 does not say anything about how the needs of the diocese come to be represented. (Many interesting questions could be asked here. Who has influence over this process? How involved is the Standing Committee or other diocesan bodies? Is there to be any public review of the profile once drawn up? Inquiring minds want to know. I understand that, at the last hearing, someone asked about this and was told that no profile would be drawn up until a series of meetings, probably at every parish, takes place. For whatever reason, this was not set out either in Resolution 2 proper or in its explanation.) If the two modes of nomination are to be carried out serially, either one, at least in principle, could proceed first.

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that a season for nominations be followed by one during which the Nomination Committee selects nominees, but this scheme is not obviously flawed. In such a system, people in the diocese place candidates on the ballot, after which the committee can offer alternative candidates, rounding out, in some sense, the slate. In some dioceses, nominations are made only by petition, so this process duplicates that one while adding an additional safeguard. But if one is inclined to be suspicious of committees—it is worth noting that Resolution 2 does not indicate how big a Nomination Committee is to be appointed by the Standing Committee or how members will be selected—then one would have reason not to trust the committee to round out the slate.

I believe a more attractive way of implementing a serial-mode nomination process is to have a period during which nominations may be made by petition after the Nomination Committee has done its work. People with strong feelings about potential candidates will, of course, submit names to the committee, which will measure the candidates against the profile and evaluate their backgrounds, presumably recommending some for consideration as our next bishop and filtering out others. If this process works well, most people should be happy with the resulting slate. If some are not, a period of, say, 30 days could be offered during which nominations by petition could be accepted.

Advantages of this scheme include the following:

1. It encourages people to trust the Nomination Committee, rather than presume that it will fail to do the right thing.
2. It puts in the hands of the diocese at large the responsibility to “fix” any last-minute problems, that is, to round-out the slate of candidates as may be necessary.
3. It will likely result in more candidates being thoroughly vetted by the Nomination Committee and fewer candidates avoiding such close scrutiny by means of the petition process. The committee, after all, has both greater responsibility and more resources to investigate fully proposed candidates.

This serial-mode process makes it impossible to keep secret who was nominated how. I consider this positive, but some may think otherwise. The process also necessarily takes more time and makes more work for the Nomination Committee.

Other Loose Ends

Resolution 2 says nothing about the existing rules of order for electing bishops. It is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss those rules of order except to say that they will not be acceptable, if only because they provide explicitly for nominations from the floor. Resolution 2 or the accompanying explanation should indicate that the rules of order will be revised.

I have already mentioned that I think six signatures are too few for any petition, and I fully expect this number to be increased. I would also like to see signatures from non-deputy laypersons to be required on petitions. Moreover, signatures should attest that not only do signers believe the person to be a good candidate but also that that person’s credentials have, in some sense, been personally evaluated. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that petitioners will have the inclination or wherewithal to examine candidate qualifications as thoroughly as could the Nomination Committee.

Neither the parallel-mode nor the serial-mode process overcomes the objection that not all candidates are subject to the same careful scrutiny by the Nomination Committee. In fact, in the last election, all candidates underwent the same vetting process, but whatever negative information found about Duncan was never disclosed. There is a serious problem here. I have a suggestion to address this concern, though one likely to be controversial.

If the diocese insists on the parallel-mode process, the deadline for petitions should be early enough that the Nomination Committee has time to investigate all candidates equally. The committee should be allowed to flag candidates as not meeting its own standards and/or be free to disclose what its members consider negative information discovered about particular candidates nominated by petition. Notice that such an ability given to the committee, whether used in a parallel-mode or serial-mode process, discourages all but the most serious nominations.

If a serial-mode process is adopted—I assume here that petitions are accepted after the Nomination Committee has done its work—the situation is trickier. One option would be to require the names of potential petition candidates to be submitted in advance, so that the candidates can be evaluated by the committee, whether or not the committee puts them on the ballot. (This does create possibly wasted effort on the part of the committee should a particular candidate never be nominated.) Another option would be to allow a period after the petition period during which the candidates nominated by petition could be vetted. As before, the committee should be free to disclose what it knows.

Recommendations

In consideration of all the foregoing, here are the changes I would like to see to Resolution 2:

1. The resolution should specify how many people are to be on the Nomination Committee. (As of now, I have no strong feelings about what those details should be.)
2. A period for nomination by petition should occur after the Nomination Committee offers its slate. The period should be not more than 30 days, after which the Nomination Committee, which cannot disqualify a candidate so nominated for anything other than a failure to pass the background check, is given time to vet each petition nominee according to the same criteria used for other candidates.
3. The Nomination Committee should be free to make any statement about a candidate nominated by petition that it feels necessary for the convention to carry out its charge.
4. The Nomination Committee should be free to recommend to petitioners that a petition be withdrawn, based on its investigation, but the recommendation need not be accepted.
5. Nominations by petition should require at least four clergy, four lay deputies, and 10 other lay signatures. In each case, at least three parishes should be represented. Signatures should attest to the fact that the person signing has examined the qualifications of the person nominated and sincerely believes that that person is qualified to be Bishop of Pittsburgh.
   

Farm-grown Ingredients

Ever since I saw a Campbell’s soup commercial on television a few days ago touting the company’s use of “farm-grown ingredients,” I have been meaning to write a post about what a strange phrase “farm-grown ingredients” is. Time’s Michael Scherer beat me to the punch in a commentary that included this paragraph:

Yesterday, I caught a new spot for Campbell’s soup that boasts of the company’s “farm-grown ingredients.” I did a double take. “Farm-grown ingredients”? As opposed to what? Test-tube carrots? Magically conjured potatoes? I imagined Peggy on Mad Man presenting the idea to Don Draper. The scene did not end well.

That reaction was similar to mine, though the first alternative to “farm-grown ingredients” that came to my mind was Soylent Green, not an appetizing thought!

Campbell’s, in an attempt to suggest that its soups are wholesome and nutritious, has come up with a phrase that seems to be saying something but is really quite meaningless. I would be willing to bet that, for example, Progresso soups also contain farm-grown ingredients. In fact, I would be much more impressed with Campbell’s’ power of innovation if the company could produce soups without using farm-grown ingredients.

The Adweek Web site offers a story about the new Campbell’s campaign. The campaign’s tagline is not actually about ingredients, at least not directly. The tagline is “It’s amazing what soup can do.”

Actually, it’s amazing what advertising executives can (or will) do.

St. Laika’s

The Rev. Jonathan Hagger of Newcastle Upon Tyne, aka Mad Priest and author of the blog Of Course, I Could Be Wrong… (OCIMBW), initiated a new blog today, St. Laika’s. Describing the new site, Hagger writes, in part:

We are an ecclesial community without any formal membership. You are part of it if you want to be part of it.

We are pan-denominational and nobody is excluded because of their personal beliefs or lack of belief. Our worship is from the Christian tradition and our liturgy is borrowed from any source that takes our fancy.

Tobias Haller, BSG, describes St. Laika’s as a “virtual parish.” From what little there is on the blog so far, that seems like a fair description. The blog carries the tag line “You don’t have to be like me and I don’t have to be like you,” a commentary, I take it, on the uglier trends within the Anglican Communion.

A companion site to St. Laika’s is THE ANCHORHOLD @ St. Laika’s, administered by Ellie Finlay.

Hagger seems to have a thing about “St. Laika,” who has long appeared in the OCIMBW sidebar labeled “OUR PATRON.” Laika, it turns out, is the Moscow stray sent into orbit on Sputnik 2 in 1957. Laika actually was something of a martyr, as she could neither be sustained in space nor brought back to earth. (See the Wikipedia article on Laika here.)

Check out St. Laika’s.

Standing Committee to Bennison: ‘Consider Spirit of the Law’

Yesterday, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania once again wrote to its recently returned controversial bishop, Charles Bennison. According to the Standing Committee, the diocese has embarked on a responsible course in the past five years, planning carefully for the future. Bennison, say the members of the Standing Committee, has essentially ignored what has taken place in his absence and is trying to pick up where he left off, pursuing his own idiosyncratic agenda. The letter advises

Bishop, we - i.e., you, the Standing Committee and all the leadership of the diocese - are not here to affirm our own personal vision but to help guide and support the diocese in determining a shared vision. Can we please let that work go forward without throwing obstructions up, creating dissent through distrust and misinformation, and investing heavily in anything that will stretch the finances of the diocese beyond anything realistic and cause more and more parishes to withhold funds.

Clearly, there is a power struggle going on in the diocese. I suspect that members of the Standing Committee see this as an attempt to rein in an out-of-control megalomaniacal bishop. Without trying to justify Bennison’s actions—I have called for him to resign myself—it is probably the case that the bishop sees the struggle as an attempt to preserve episcopal prerogatives.

It is hard not to have the same shocked reaction as the Standing Committee to this revelation in the letter:

Finally, and perhaps most shocking of all, we have been made aware of what you said at Diocesan Council on September 25, 2010, concerning the witnesses at your trial: “It is known now that all the witnesses at my trial intentionally perjured themselves.”

Not only does Bennison admit no guilt, but he blames everyone else for his troubles.

Although the Standing Committee does not again ask Bennison to resign, the letter does say

Bishop, the letter of the law has allowed you to return. Please consider the spirit of the law as you determine your way forward, for yourself and for the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

Perhaps the Standing Committee is losing hope that it can convince Bennison to step down. No doubt, that is what Standing Committee members are praying for, however.

The entire letter follows:

September 29, 2010

St. Michael and All Angels

Dear Bishop Bennison:

It has been six weeks since your return to active ministry in the diocese of Pennsylvania. You have met with the Standing Committee’s Executive Committee, attended one Standing Committee meeting, met with Diocesan Council’s Executive Committee, chaired one Diocesan Council meeting, chaired one Council of Deans meeting, met with a small group representing the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission (DMPC), and met with many others, individuals and small groups as well as the staff at Church House. You have attended one House of Bishops meeting, and you have also addressed some issues concerning the situation in the Diocese of Pennsylvania through the media.

We list these things in order that you may understand that we are very concerned with the inconsistency of your message, the seeming lack of understanding on your part as to how well we do now communicate in the diocese, and the discrepancies between what you have said and what you seem to be doing.

You informed the Standing Committee and others that you have clearly seen that there have been changes in the diocese during your absence, and you felt it would be important for you to listen for some time before determining your own actions going forward. But your actions and communications these last six weeks belie this.

To begin with, you voiced to the Standing Committee your commitment to the process approved by Convention in the formation of the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission and told us you had made clear to that Commission that you supported their work and would not be about changing this way in which the diocese has agreed to go forward.

Bishop, if what you have said about supporting this structure is true, then why are you attempting to revive the situations having to do with Wapiti and the Cathedral Commons project? These are long-range planning issues that require time and finances. The Standing Committee, as a fiscally responsible agent, has spent the time you were away considering not only what the diocese can afford but, more importantly, allowing a time and space for the diocese to determine that itself. The very work of the DMPC is to look ahead, to determine what we think the church in Pennsylvania will look like, be like, in the next two years, ten years, twenty-five years, and what our mission will be. They still have much work to do: gathering facts, wishes, visions, and opinions from the diocese, and getting information from city Planning Commissions and other qualified sources. Why would we even consider major real estate projects before knowing what it is, and who it is, we are planning for?

Additionally, it has come to our attention that you are discussing the possible purchase of another building (the Karp property) in relation to the Cathedral Commons project while three governing bodies (Standing Committee, Finance and Property, and the Church Foundation Board) have committed to the sale of the one we own now - 3717-19 Chestnut Street. Why would you encourage such a thing at this time in the life of the diocese? Are you chasing a dream, a vision, of your own?

It has also come to our attention that you have mentioned the possibility of renewing activities at Wapiti. Again, in your absence the decision was made by convention to sell Wapiti. There is a committee that is representative of Standing Committee, Diocesan Council, and Finance and Property that have worked many hours with highly qualified real estate people in marketing this property. If you wish for convention to reconsider this decision wouldn’t it make sense for you to first consult with this committee rather than for all of us to read about your thoughts on such a volatile subject in the newspaper? It is so disrespectful of all the diocese has worked for in being open and honest with each other for you to attempt at this time to undo that work by undermining and obfuscating information.

We are also aware that it is your intention to use funds from the income of the Nunn’s Fund , approximately $70,000.00, to publish the book on the history of the diocese - a project left unfinished when you were inhibited. Again Bishop, wouldn’t it make sense to find out why that project had not been completed before forging ahead? The Standing Committee has been extremely careful, frugal even, with the income from the Nunn’s Fund during your absence. We recognized that our future needs are great and hoped those funds would be available as, again, we worked towards an understanding of what the future of our diocese will look like. According to the trust document, these funds are to be used “at the discretion of the bishop for the good of the diocese;” and while we were the Ecclesiastical Authority, we guarded these funds, honoring the use for which they were intended. In our extremely fragile situation, and considering the confusion and great discontent of so many at your return, it makes no sense at this time to publish a history of this diocese, much less to spend $70,000.00 doing so. The diocese has spent $133,000.00 on this project already, and we have met all contractual obligations. We are in a position to wait for publication until we can (1) afford it and (2) determine if this history book should include another chapter or two about the history we have made here in the past five years.

At Diocesan Council meeting on Saturday, September 25, 2010, you made clear that the pledge to the DMPC of $50,000.00, made by the Standing Committee and committed from the Nunn’s Fund income, would be honored by you, but that you could not offer any more than that. Bishop, thanks to the Standing Committee’s fiscal responsibility, when you returned the income available to you was almost $500,000.00. The fact that you are willing to spend $70,000.00 for an incomplete history book but would not consider supporting the DMPC and our future mission speaks volumes to your perspective of what is good for the diocese. Granted, the DMPC did not ask for more funds, but you were adamant anyway that there would be no more for that work.

As the diocese prepares to come together in convention, and as the hard facts of the Program Budget shortfall become evident to the diocese, we are extremely concerned that your apparent insistence on putting everything back the way it was before you left will cause a large number of parishes to hold back funding to the diocese, both assessments and pledges. The Standing Committee continues to hear from people in the diocese daily, through letters, emails, and phone calls, concerning your return. About 85% of these communications are negative. When it becomes clear to more and more that you want to move us back to some vision of your own, we are afraid that this will add to the potential “revolution” in the diocese.

Bishop, we—i.e., you, the Standing Committee and all the leadership of the diocese—are not here to affirm our own personal vision but to help guide and support the diocese in determining a shared vision. Can we please let that work go forward without throwing obstructions up, creating dissent through distrust and misinformation, and investing heavily in anything that will stretch the finances of the diocese beyond anything realistic and cause more and more parishes to withhold funds.

Finally, and perhaps most shocking of all, we have been made aware of what you said at Diocesan Council on September 25, 2010, concerning the witnesses at your trial: “It is known now that all the witnesses at my trial intentionally perjured themselves.” These are shocking words, and words which we feel you need to address immediately. Can you possibly have meant what you said? If so, this is one more indication of a serious problem. You have managed to ignore or discount the opinions and conclusions of three courts, two Presiding Bishops, the House of Bishops, and untold numbers of lay and clergy in the diocese of Pennsylvania, and now all the witnesses at your trial. We find it amazing that you are able to think that this is in any way normal behavior.

Bishop, the letter of the law has allowed you to return. Please consider the spirit of the law as you determine your way forward, for yourself and for the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

In order to honor our commitment to openness and honesty we plan to make this letter public to our diocesan family.

Faithfully,

The Standing Committee

Update, 10/3/2010: Episcopal News Service ran a story on the Standing Committee’s letter here and has provided a PDF file of the letter itself here.

Episcopal Election Plan Gets Chilly Reception

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh held its first pre-convention hearing last night. As usual, much of the presentations and discussions was boring. However, a resolution to begin the process of electing a new bishop prompted a spirited discussion. That resolution can be read here.

It has now been two years since the Diocese of Pittsburgh lost many of its congregations and leaders to what has mutated into the Anglican Church in North America. Three bishops have assisted us in those two years in getting back on our feet. A certain amount of hurt and mistrust remains, but the Standing Committee believes it is finally time to move on, and it has put forth Resolution 2, which outlines how we would, if it is passed, select our next bishop. The goal is to elect the next Bishop of Pittsburgh on April 21, 2012.

Interestingly, the discussion last night was not about whether Pittsburgh is ready to elect its first diocesan bishop since Bob Duncan. I suspect we could quibble about the timing, but we have to get on with the election process eventually, and I doubt anyone is going to mount much of a crusade to postpone the inevitable any longer. Instead, we debated the wisdom of the particular process the Standing Committee came up with. That process was certainly designed with the knowledge of recent episcopal elections in Pittsburgh in mind, elections that, in retrospect, led the diocese in the wrong direction. The procedures advanced by the Standing Committee are, we were told, “intended to promote prayerful deliberation and the highest possible degree of openness and transparency.” We were also told that no other diocese has ever used a process like the one being proposed.

Having already been assured by our provisional bishop Ken Price that nominations from the floor would not be allowed—Bob Duncan had been nominated from the floor—I had been complacent about the actual proposal, which I had not read before attending last night’s meeting. I wasn’t even listening carefully as it was being described. I was therefore surprised when the Rev. Harold Lewis, rector of Calvary Church, got up to speak. Harold was clearly on a mission. He was upset over the dual-mode nominating process embodied in Resolution 2.

Here, I must briefly describe what the Standing Committee proposed. The essentials are the following:

• The Standing Committee is to appoint a Nomination Committee to solicit and screen episcopal candidates and to put forward a slate of at least four nominees.
• The Standing Committee is to appoint a Transition Committee to manage all the logistics from the time the nominees are announced through the consecration of the new bishop.
• The two committees will be advised by a Diocesan Consultant selected by the Standing Committee.
• The Standing Committee is to prepare a budget for the process, which will be approved by the Board of Trustees and financed from diocesan reserves.
• Concurrently, as the Nominations Committee is doing its work, episcopal candidates may be put on the ballot by petition from three lay convention deputies and three clergy representing at least two parishes. Candidates nominated by petition are automatically added to the final slate if they pass the usual background checks. No one may sign more than one petition.
  

Harold’s point was that the two nomination modes have two different standards. Candidates who enter the process by petition are not vetted according to the standards established by the Nomination Committee. In the discussion, it was also mentioned that the petition process favors internal candidates or candidates outside the diocese with strong personal connections to the diocese. (This might include ultra-conservative former Pittsburgh clergy who, rather than following Duncan into the Anglican dessert, chose instead to flee to safe-haven dioceses such as South Carolina and Dallas.) Moreover, the dual-mode process encourages candidates to take the sure-fire petition route if at all possible—only six signatures are needed, after all—rather than trusting to the uncertainties of committee deliberations. In fact, the Nomination Committee could be reduced to initiating background checks on candidates nominated by petition.

At the end of the discussion someone suggested taking a straw poll as to whether nomination by committee and nomination by petition should proceed in parallel or serially. The parallel procedure received a single vote in a room of 50 people or so. It will be interesting to see if the hearings tomorrow night and the next night reveal similar misgivings.

Some Personal Thoughts

Allowing nomination by petition at the same time the Nomination Committee is deliberating seems to me to suggest, even before the committee has done its job—or been formed, actually—that the committee cannot be trusted. I would hope, on the other hand, that the committee can be trusted. Petitions are usually solicited only after a slate of candidates has been announced. They are a mechanism by which those unhappy with the overall slate of candidates can propose an alternative. The submission of petitions represents, in a way, a failure of the nominating committee to offer an attractive slate acceptable to all factions in a diocese. In a well-run selection process, there should be no petitions. Alas, what the Standing Committee has proposed actually encourages nomination by petition.

Additionally, nomination by only three clergy and three laypeople seems a very low standard for inclusion in an episcopal election. Each additional candidate in an election costs the diocese extra money, and the proposed process could generate a lot of candidates. Also, why cannot laypeople who are not deputies be part of the petitioning process. The proposal does not explain this particular quirk.

The requirement that the Nomination Committee should not indicate who was selected by the committee and who was put on the ballot by petition is curious. My own rector, Lou Hays, said that he would want to know who was in which category, simply because one group presumably had been through a more vigorous screening process than the other. Lou had a point, although I suspect that it will be hard to keep secret who has been nominated by petition, if only because people will have to be asked for support and some will say no and others will say yes and talk about it.

I was surprised that the Standing Committee did not offer a time line for the electoral process. It has a specific end date, and I assume there are projected dates for intermediate milestones on a document somewhere. Doesn’t the convention need to see how the Standing Committee thinks this process will play out? Particularly if the process is modified by the convention, it is important to know that the election date can be preserved (or not). There are other details one would think the convention would like to know, such as how many people will be appointed to the Nomination Committee and what is the clergy/lay balance on it.

I have a more general objection to Resolution 2. Although some provisions are carefully laid out in the resolution—the provision for “contemporaneous Nomination by Petition and Nomination by the Nomination Committee,” for example—other details are only found in the “Explanation,” which is not technically part of the resolution. For instance, the number of signatures required for nomination by petition, if the resolution is adopted as is, is not actually determined by the convention and might end up being other than what we are being led to expect. The Nomination Committee, according to the resolution, is “to implement the Standing Committee’s Guidelines for contemporaneous Nomination by Petition and Nomination by the Nomination Committee.” What are those guidelines? Are they what appears under “Explanation,” or can the Standing Committee change them at will? This is not my idea of transparency.

Finally, there are parts of the resolution and discussion that are poorly worded, although this isn’t too big a deal. Consider this sentence: “Any three canonically resident clergy, with any three laypersons certified at the time the petition is presented as Deputies to Diocesan Convention, from at least two different parishes, may submit a Nominating Petition in writing to the Nomination Committee.” Does “from at least two different parishes” apply to clergy, to lay deputies, or to both? I don’t know because the sentence is ambiguous.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to have the convention micromanage the election process. Transparency, however, requires that convention know what it is voting for, and this resolution makes that all pretty indistinct.

What would I like to see? I would like to see a short period allowed for submission of petitions after the slate is announced by the Nomination Committee. Ordinary laypeople should be able to participate in submitting a petition, which should need a relatively large number of signatures. I would hope that, under such a system, no one will feel the need for nominating a candidate by petition.

Fantastic but Hazardous

Despite warnings that might be on labels, I am not in the habit of thinking of kitchen cleaning products as hazardous, but I got a wake-up call today.

I had been using various cleaners for kitchen counters in the glass-plus-other-stuff category. These cleaners frequently required recourse to my Bar Keeper’s Friend to remove stains on counters. I decided that perhaps I should be using a stronger cleaner.

A cleaner I used to use is fantastik—yes, the product name is really spelled with a lowercase F—so I bought a spray bottle of fantastik. What I did not realize is that fantastik has morphed into a family of four products. In the supermarket, I picked up the first fantastik product I ran across. I don’t remember seeing any of the other variants, but I may have just missed them.

In any case, the product I purchased was one whose full name appears to be fantastik All Purpose Cleaner With Bleach. (The other products in the family of cleaners are fantastik All Purpose Heavy Duty Cleaner—probably what I set out to buy—fantastik Antibacterial All Purpose Cleaner Lemon Power, and fantastik OxyPower Multi-Purpose Cleaner.)

Today, I was cleaning counters with my purchase. The bad news is that fantastik smells like, well, bleach. It is not easy on the hands, but it cleans well and gets rid of stains without having to resort to another product.

The real down side, however, was not evident until I sat down to lunch and noticed the spots on my shirt. I immediately recognized the source of those rust-colored patches on my navy blue shirt—bleach. I had not been spraying my shirt, of course, but neither had I been taking precautions to avoid getting the cleaner on it. Yes, Virginia, it contains real bleach all right.

The bottom line is that fantastik All Purpose Cleaner With Bleach works well but should be used with care. Certainly, I intend to use it sparingly, perhaps trying the heavy duty formula fantastik for routine cleaning.

Note: OxyPower, Lemon Power, and fantastik are trademarks of S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Cats and Syringes

My cat Ezekiel (Zeke, see below) was diagnosed with diabetes earlier this year. Happily, he is doing well now. One of my challenges, however, has been trying to save money on his medical supplies. In particular, I discovered a way to save money on syringes. (He needs two a day.) I just posted a brief essay on my experiences in this department, which includes links to pages useful to pet owners with diabetic cats. You can read “Syringes for My Cat” here.

Political Logos

The Tea Party Movement is very decentralized. Perhaps it can do without a national leader or, for that matter, a national platform. It sorely needs a national logo, however, some symbol that will immediately identify the Tea Party Movement “brand.” I am happy to offer this band of angry Americans a logo free of charge. Certainly, the majority of Americans will immediately recognize that I have captured the essence of the Movement in this arresting emblem:


The Republicans need a little help, too. Well, the Democrats, actually. The Republican (should I say Republic?) Party has just unveiled “A Pledge to America.” The Democrats need to expose this “Pledge” for what it is. Here is my suggested logo to help with that campaign. There is no charge for this one, either.

Blog Changes and Features

I want to let everyone know about some recent changes to Lionel Deimel’s Web Log. I also want to point out some features that may not be obvious but may still be of interest.

New Features

I’ve added a link in the sidebar to Pittsburgh Update, a site of which I am the principal author. More on this below.

I suspect that it has not been obvious to some visitors how to get to the page containing only the post you are interested in. For example, if you go to http://blog.deimel.org/, you may discover that you would like to link to the second post (0n your own blog, perhaps), and you need its address (URL). Heretofore, there has been only one reliable, albeit unintuitive, way to do this, namely to click on the time stamp, which appears below the post. On many blogs, on the other hand, one can click on the title of a post to go to the page containing only that post. You can now do that on this blog as well. Clicking on the time stamp also works. The page of an individual post always shows comments and links from elsewhere to that page, though I have found the latter listing to be less than reliable.

Other Links

Let me begin by listing links whose exact function may be obscure but which have not changed:

• Clicking on the blog title at the top of the page takes you to the blog home page (i.e., to http://blog.deimel.org/.) Clicking on Blog Home, under Links in the sidebar, does so also.
  
• Clicking on links to this post below a post takes you to the links bookmark at the bottom of the page containing only that post. (The URL to which you will be taken is that of the post with “#links” appended. This is where links to the page are displayed.)
• Clicking on n comments below a post—the n is a non-negative integer indicating the number of comments made about the post—takes you to a special Blogger comments page, where existing comments appear along with a form to post a comment of your own. (You must first log in with a Google or other ID.) This page normally does not show the original post, but there is a link at the top left of the page that allows you to display it if you like.

Less obscure in function are other links in the sidebar under Links. I have already discussed Blog Home. Here is a rundown of the others:

• Table of Contents: Unlike most blogs, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago has a complete table of contents on the Site Map page of my Web site, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. Posts are listed there in chronological order, along with brief—though, alas, sometimes cryptic—descriptions. They are are also categorized as being about language, the church, administrative matters regarding the Web site or blog, or anything else (politics, the weather, etc.). The Table of Contents is helpful if you want to look up a blog title or look for posts around a particular date. For general searches, I recommend using the search box at the left of the Blogger toolbar at the very top of the page.
• Lionel Deimel’s Farrago: This is a link to my Web site, which I invite you to explore if you have never done so. It is, well, eclectic. In theory, what is on my Web site is more polished and of more long-term interest than what appears here, but you shouldn’t actually count on that.
• Pittsburgh Update: This is a site that deserves more attention. Each week, I post, with the help of two other members of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a summary of Episcopal Church news, along with links to more information on the Web. A small number of stories do concern the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, but the real intent of the site is to keep Episcopalians updated on the ongoing foreign and domestic church wars. At some point, a site like Pittsburgh Update might be unnecessary, but don’t hold your breath. Don’t look for feel-good stories here, but it is a good place even for church news junkies to check in to see if they’ve missed anything. The weekly news summary is usually posted near midnight on Monday.
  
• St. Paul’s’ Epistle: This is a blog about my own parish, a kind of alternative parish newsletter. It is a relatively new venture still looking for a following. I only expect folks with an actual connection to St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, to read it regularly, but anyone wondering if such a blog makes a positive or negative contribution to parish life might want to have a look. I am the only author of posts at the moment and am not actively looking for help.
• E-mail Me: I probably don’t have to explain this one.

On the home page, and only there, you will find pages of posts by month under Archives in the sidebar. Generally, under Previous Posts, you will find links to posts published before the one being viewed, though, when viewing an archive file, Previous Posts will list the most recent posts instead. (Disclaimer: I didn’t design this feature.)

Keeping in Touch

At the bottom of the sidebar are links to Atom and RSS syndication. (Certain browsers also display syndication icons.) I won’t try to explain syndication here except to say that syndication allows you to read (or at least be notified of) new material on your favorite Web sites in one convenient place. I recommend Google Reader as a means to read syndication feeds, but I don’t pretend to know much about the alternatives, and I’m not going to try to explain Google Reader, either. Mainly, I want people to know how you can subscribe to this blog’s syndication feed. You’ll have to figure out what to do next on your own.

Many of my readers are Episcopalians. Because I suspected that some of these folks might be less interested in my posts on language, say, than in my posts on the Anglican Communion, readers can sign up to receive e-mail when I publish a church-related post. You can get on the e-mail list by clicking on the link after the Atom and RSS links.

Show Your Colors

Below About Me, at the right of the page, the blog sports my No Anglican Covenant logo. I believe that an Anglican covenant is a bad idea generally, and the draft now before Anglican churches well exemplifies this generalization. I encourage others to display my logo on their Web sites, blogs, or elsewhere where it might have an opportunity to influence Anglican opinion. Clicking on the logo takes you to the post, “No Anglican Covenant,” where I first announced the availability of the logo. That post also links to a larger graphic that should satisfy most needs for a higher-resolution image.

Below the No Anglican Covenant logo is a link to my Farrago Gift Shop. Mostly, the gift shop has clothing and other items with the No Anglican Covenant logo. Here are a few samples:

The gift shop also offers merchandise that feature one of my curve-stitch designs, such as this wall clock:

Admittedly, there isn’t a big market for this sort of thing, but, if you’re reading this, you might be part of the small group that is interested. Take a look.

Enjoy

Well, I’ve probably told you more than your really wanted to know, but, if you got this far, you must have learned something of interest. I hope this post will help you get the most out of Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. Happy reading (and commenting)!

Life without Electricity

I am writing this at 9:30 PM on a laptop on my deck, bathed in the light of the computer screen and a candle. Although I only lost power for about four hours yesterday due to the thunderstorm—see “High Winds”—and “After the Storm”—power went out early this afternoon, and it has yet to return. I guess this is what it feels like to live in Iraq, except for the explosives and bullets, of course.

I did attend choir rehearsal tonight. This was a tough call, as I feel I am coming down with a sinus infection or some such. I got to church early, however, to do a quick check of my e-mail. To my surprise, singing actually made me feel better. I was breathing better, anyway; my throat is another matter.

I tried lying down in bed, but it has been a warm day, and my bedroom is hot and stuffy. Even on the deck there isn’t much of a breeze, but it is at least cooler. In a few minutes, the full moon will be peeking out from behind the house to provide a bit more light on the deck. Too bad that most of what I want to do (including post this) requires an Internet connection!

Update, 9/24/2010, 7:23 PM: Power returned to my house about 2:30 AM this morning. I’m posting this over the time stamp indicating when it was first written.

More on the Goings On in South Carolina

Dr. Joan Gundersen has posted the first part of an essay titled “What the Diocese of South Carolina May Get Wrong.” The essay deals with the resolutions about to be passed—assuredly they will be passed—by the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

Gundersen points out that all Episcopal Church dioceses have had ample warning of the Title IV changes that take effect in less than a year. No one seems to have raised questions about the validity of those changes until the Anglican Communion Institute posted its recent essay on the subject. (Would I be considered paranoid to suggest that Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Anglican Communion Institute are in cahoots with one another on this matter? See my essay on the South Carolina situation here.)

Gundersen is well qualified to write about what South Carolina is about to do. Not only was she a General Convention deputy from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh who had to vote on the Title IV revisions, but she and chancellor Andy Roman took the lead in rewriting the Pittsburgh canons that deal with the new disciplinary rules of The Episcopal Church. As she mentions in her essay, Gundersen is a member of the diocese’s Committee on Canons.

Gundersen concludes her essay with the following paragraph:

So why is there such a fuss now? Is it really the changes that worry South Carolina, or is it that some are looking for a wedge issue to drive South Carolina further from the rest of the Church and isolate it more? Were some of South Carolina’s leaders following a strategy based on evading one set of disciplinary canons only to find that the loopholes they had counted on were about to be closed? Were South Carolina leaders so asleep at the switch that for five years they didn’t notice a major revision of the canons until the deadline for implementation of the canons drew near? Whatever explanation you pick, it would seem the problem lies more within the Diocese of South Carolina than in Title IV.

In her next installment, Dr. Gundersen plans to deal directly with constitutional questions related to the new Title IV.

After the Storm

I was surprised this morning by a 6:45 AM robocall from Mt. Lebanon warning me that there are many trees and power lines down and many traffic lights out. The call announced that schools are closed today and advised everyone to stay at home.

Yesterday’s storm clearly hit my community harder than most in the area, although neighboring communities were also heavily impacted according the the local news from WDUQ-FM. The radio station put the number of Duquesne Light customers still without power at 13,000. (Duquesne Light is not the only power company in the area. Another 13,000 customers are also without electricity.) According to the Post-Gazette, the storm cut off power to 82,000 households and businesses. Rain seems to have caused little damage; high winds and lightning were responsible for most of the trouble from the storm.

I have food in the house, including cat food, and no pressing reason to go out today except for choir rehearsal tonight. It is not clear whether we will have rehearsal, but I suspect that we will if the church has power. I did see a large tree branch down in front of St. Paul’s yesterday, but there were no power lines nearby.

The branch blocking Syracuse Avenue just down the street that I mention in my last post has, surprisingly, been moved out of the street. It is not gone, however, just moved to the side of the road. (The street is bounded on one side by an undeveloped wooded parcel.) This can be seen in the photo below:


Actually, the tops of two trees seem to have been knocked off by the storm, as can be seen in this photo:

High Winds

There was a severe thunderstorm warning for southwestern Pennsylvania this afternoon, and it turned out to be appropriate. Sometime around 4 PM, heavy rains and strong winds hit Mt. Lebanon, the Pittsburgh suburb in which I live. I was writing a blog post (see “S.C. Via Media Group Calls for Investigation”) when the storm hit, and, shortly after the rain began, power failed. My computer and my VOIP telephone service both went down, and, unfortunately, as I had discovered only about an hour earlier, the battery charge on my cell phone was almost gone. I didn’t even have enough power left to call the power company to report the outage.

The storm did not last long. The only physical damage I suffered was to a begonia that fell off a picnic table and lost a good many stems on one side of the pot. When the rain abated, I got into the car, attached the charger to my cell phone, and called Duquesne Light Company . Duquesne Light already knew about the outage in my area. The automated message asked me if I had any more specific information. Since I did not, I hung up. The question caused me to walk around the neighborhood a bit, however, looking for obvious problems with power lines. I didn't find any, but I did discover a large tree branch blocking a street half a block away. I called 911 about this. I was on hold for a minute or two—there were lots of calls today to the county 911 service—and was then told that the branch in question was already on the list of downed trees in the area.

It was clear that the brief storm had done a lot of damage, so it was uncertain just how long power was likely to be out. I was capable of making dinner from items in my refrigerator, but I was reluctant to open it, lest I decrease unnecessarily the time before food began to spoil. I thought I could drive a short distance and find a fast-food restaurant open that could provide an adequate dinner. The closest restaurants were on Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, but all the establishments on the north side of the street were clearly without power. Subway, on the south side, did have power. After being discouraged by traffic in another direction where I thought I might find food, I doubled back to Subway, only to find a long line of people who were, no doubt, in the same situation as I was. Stupidly, I sought greener pastures.

I headed in the direction of another set of restaurants, including another Subway. Everywhere I went, however, traffic lights were out, trees were blocking streets, and restaurants were conspicuously dark. A few intersections had police directing traffic, but it wasn’t clear that such intersections were operating any more efficiently that those without either traffic lights or police. Drivers were treating the latter as four-way stops, and traffic in all directions was moving, albeit somewhat slower than usual.

Not having found the edge of the power outage, I headed for home via a different route, hoping that one of several restaurants I would pass would be open. I became hopeful when, as I drove down Bower Hill Road, I began to see working traffic lights, streetlights, and homes with lights inside. Sure enough, the Italian pizza and hoagie restaurant I thought might have escaped the power outage was indeed open. I decided not to wait to see if Panera’s was also open. (Panera Bread would have given me more attractive food and Internet access.) I had a hoagie and Pepsi Zero and headed home. The Galleria, the mall housing Panera’s, clearly had only emergency lights working.

Remarkably, when I returned home, the power was back on, and I got back to my blog post. On the 11 o’clock news, I learned that Mt. Lebanon was particularly hard hit by the storm, with many areas still without power and trees down everywhere. KDKA-TV reported that Duquesne Light has 23,000 customers without power.

S.C. Via Media Group Calls for Investigation

The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina (EFSC) has written a letter to the Executive Council and to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church asking for an investigation of the “situation in our Diocese.” (The letter is available on the group’s Web site here.) EFSC explains its concerns as follows:

We wish to call to your attention the recent actions and inactions on the part of the diocesan leadership and leaders in parishes and missions within the Diocese of South Carolina, which we believe are accelerating the process of alienation and disassociation of the Diocese of South Carolina from The Episcopal Church.

What follows is a litany of what the Via Media group sees as steps taken and not taken by the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina that are designed to distance the diocese from The Episcopal Church and facilitate the removal of congregations and property from The Episcopal Church. The five-page letter also lists specific matters EFSC wants to see investigated and reproduces the text of a letter sent by an attorney experienced in church property cases to a South Carolina parish explaining what parish leaders need to do if they wish to remove themselves and their church from The Episcopal Church.

The letter comes as the diocese is preparing to hold a special session of the diocesan convention October 15, 2010, to enact changes to the diocese’s constitution and canons. As a Pittsburgh Episcopalian, I see a familiar schismatic objective behind the resolutions to be considered by South Carolina next month. The resolutions are clearly improper and surely are motivated by objectives other than the stated ones.

Where the Church Needs to Go

It is surely the case that the matters that EFSC says the church should investigate should indeed be investigated, though I have a suspicion that EFSC has a pretty good idea of what the broad outlines of the findings will be. In particular, EFSC asks the church to look into

• Parishes which, from their Web sites, seem to have taken measures to facilitate their withdrawing from The Episcopal Church.
• Actions taken and not taken regarding the departure of St. Andrew’s, Mt. Pleasant.
• Property titles and corporate documents, in order to evaluate legal risks to the church that they might represent.

Beyond what EFSC is asking, however, it is time to be thinking about what is required to depose Bishop of South Carolina Mark Lawrence. Although Lawrence does not appear to be a leader of any major schismatic movement outside his own diocese, within his diocese, his actions bring to mind those of deposed bishop Bob Duncan, the former Bishop of Pittsburgh. If Bob Duncan could be said to have abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church “by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church,” certainly, by supporting the aforementioned resolutions, Mark Lawrence is likewise guilty and should be subject to deposition.

Mark Lawrence did not create the ugly, secessionist attitude that is widespread in the state of South Carolina. (Given the state’s history, one suspects there is something in the water.) Certainly, the previous bishop, Edward L. Salmon, seemed at least as much a threat to the integrity of The Episcopal Church as the incumbent. It was clear, however, that, when the diocese elected a new bishop, it was seeking one who would be more loyal to an extremist conservative agenda than to The Episcopal Church.

This is perhaps an appropriate time to say something I’ve been waiting to say for a long time, namely, I told you so. In October 2006, when Mark Lawrence was seeking consents for the first time, I wrote “No Consents: A Crucial Test for The Episcopal Church,” arguing that his written opinions made Lawrence an inappropriate choice for an Episcopal bishop. (Via Media USA agreed with me and sent the essay to all bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees.) I later wrote “The Annotated Mark Lawrence,” in which I analyzed questions and answers from Lawrence put forth in support of his attempt to be consecrated bishop. I was not impressed.

In fact, The Episcopal Church passed its “crucial test” and did not consent to Lawrence’s consecration. (He was not denied his victory by “technicalities” and was, in fact, given more time than canonically specified to collect the necessary consents.) Alas, South Carolina re-elected Lawrence in a one-man Episcopal election, and, the second time around, the church did not have the fortitude to reject Lawrence again. It failed that second test and is now paying the price for its collective cowardice.

The Episcopal Church must stop Mark Lawrence and his supporters in his diocese before it has another crisis on its hands like those visited upon San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and Quincy. The church must act before it is too late.

As was the case in the four dioceses that are currently rebuilding after schism, there are many supporters of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. EFSC continues to grow and has, I have been told, more than 700 members. That number may expand even more after today’s letter from that group. These are the people who, one way or another, will be called upon to restore sanity to the diocese.

May God save The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Alas, God is going to need a little help.

The Martyrs of Memphis

A couple of days ago, Tobias Haller wrote a post on his blog, In a Godward Direction, called “Witness to the Witnesses.” There, he describes a visit to Memphis, Tennessee, where he took part in the celebration of the life and ministry of the Martyrs of Memphis.

I have, for some reason, always been moved by the story of, as styled in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, “Constance, Nun, and her Companions.” The Episcopal Church celebrates these folks, also known as the Martyrs of Memphis, on September 9. Certainly, it is easier for me to identify with this commemoration than with martyrdoms of many centuries ago. Also, having grown up in New Orleans, another city plagued by yellow fever in its early years, it is easy to relate to the plight of Memphis in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

The yellow fever epidemic of 1878 in Memphis killed more than 5,000 people, among them Episcopal priests and nuns who stayed behind to minister to the sick, even after much of the population had fled in terror.

I have never put much stock in pilgrimages and saints’ relics, but Haller’s description of his Memphis activities, and particularly his visiting the graves of the martyrs and employing the “Memphis Chalice” for communion, was very moving. It caused me to reread information about the self-sacrificing Christians who put service to others ahead of their own safety in that terrible 1878 Memphis summer.

I invite you to read the pages about Constance and her Companions from the 2000 edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts, which you can find here. James E. Kiefer offers some additional details, as does Wikipedia.

Update: Fr. John-Julian has graciously sent me an excerpt from his recent book Stars in a Dark World: Stories of the Saints and Holy Days of the Liturgy about the Martyrs of Memphis. This account offers more detail than any of the references I cited above. Fr. John-Julian’s 792-page 2009 paperback is available from most of the usual sources. You can also find it here.