Reflections on the Deposition Vote

Yesterday was a busy day. Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) issued two press releases, and I had a part both in writing and distributing them. In conjunction with that work, I was updating three Web sites, including this one.

Of course, what made the day a particularly tense one was the wait for news from the House of Bishops, which was meeting in Salt Lake City. The bishops were to take up the question of whether they would consent to the deposition of my diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan. The Title IV Review Committee had certified last December that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church, and the Salt Lake City meeting was the first opportunity for the bishops to take up whether to authorize the Presiding Bishop to pronounce deposition.

Conversations with people in the Presiding Bishop’s office and with certain bishops had led PEP to conclude that a vote to depose was not especially likely, although some bishops seemed to be working behind the scenes to bring about that result. PEP had prepared three press releases for each of the likely outcomes: deposition (a sad but necessary step), a “no” vote on deposition (a problem remains unsolved), and delay (the bishop gets one more final chance to step back from the brink). All three press releases had been uploaded to our Web site. When I got the news of what action the House of Bishops had taken—this assumes that it was not “none of the above”—all I needed to do was to rename one of the files, delete the other two, and send out the appropriate text to those on our e-mail distribution list.

I had just returned from a dinner run to KFC when I got the news that the House of Bishops had voted to consent to Bishop Duncan’s deposition. I quickly did the required operations—the action of the House was straightforward—and began making some phone calls to discuss the unexpected outcome. Among others, I called a local radio station that had asked to be notified when I learned something.

Within PEP, there was, I think, a good deal of relief and satisfaction. Some of us had signed the accusations against the bishop and most of us had long ago concluded that he needed to be removed from any position of responsibility within The Episcopal Church. Many of our conservative brothers and sisters in Pittsburgh who expect to remain Episcopalians would have preferred that deposition be postponed until after diocesan convention, however.

I lost track of the number of telephone conversations I had last night, and I had the satisfaction of breaking the news about deposition to a few people. We all knew, however, that relief needed to be tempered by realism. A chapter in the history of the diocese was coming to a close, but an even more trying chapter was beginning.

Reading the comments available on the Web today is an interesting exercise. Duncan’s opponents are saying what a sad occasion this is and that we should be praying for Duncan and his family. No one seems willing to say “good riddance,” partly out of good manners, partly out of a desire not to be seen as dancing on Duncan’s grave, and, perhaps, mostly, because even deposition will not achieve the much-desired riddance. We are told that, although the bishop will not contest his deposition, he has (1) been accepted as a bishop of the Southern Cone (no doubt about his abandonment now!), (2) he is still collecting a salary from the diocese as a “consultant,” (3) he is fully expecting to be tapped as the bishop of the “realigned” diocese after October 4, and (4) the diocese has now set up a blog to collect tributes from around the world to the fallen, yet oddly resurrected, hero (see In Support of Bishop Duncan). One doubts that Duncan came into the office today to clean out his desk, which is what the church has a right to expect.

Duncan supporters who have not been searching their thesauri for words of praise for their deposed (or soon-to-be-deposed) hero, are busily trashing The Episcopal Church for a variety of imaginary sins mostly having to do with failure to “obey the canons” and to observe “due process.”

The good news is that Duncan’s deposition is assured. Some of us feared that, had the bishops deferred a vote, they might have chosen not to approve deposition should the October 4 “realignment” vote fail. On the other hand, deposition now is likely to create enough sympathy for Duncan to sway the votes of some undecided lay deputies to his side. (A few may be swayed the other way by the clear action of the House of Bishops, but no one seems to think that this effect will be the dominate factor as far as convention goes.) “Realignment” is expected to pass easily among the clergy.

There are, of course, two more weeks before diocesan convention. Apparently, Duncan’s employment by the Diocese of Pittsburgh will continue during that period. Why, one might ask, would an Episcopal diocese employ as a consultant a bishop who has been thrown out of The Episcopal Church? Duncan, of course, is an expert in subversion of the church, and it is clear that subverting the church is exactly the program of 7 of the 8 members of the Standing Committee.

It will be interesting to see if Duncan makes the episcopal visits scheduled for these next two weekends. Assuming that he is deposed presently—I am told that we should not consider him to be deposed until the Presiding Bishop pronounces deposition—then it will be even more interesting to see if Assistant Bishop Henry Scriven makes episcopal visits. Canon III.12.6(e) says:

No person may serve as an Assistant Bishop beyond the termination of the jurisdiction of the appointing Bishop or after attaining the age of seventy-two years.

I read this to mean that, when Duncan is deposed, Scriven is toast. Perhaps he will make the visits in a consultant role as well? (Do we have a liturgy for deposition, by the way? I thought +Katharine just waved her magic wand or something.)

Anyway, it appears that the Standing Committee will be responsible for running the upcoming convention. In all liklihood, the “realignment” votes will carry, and, sometime later, we will determine that all but one member of the Standing Committee will be claiming to be in the Southern Cone. This will mean that they are not in The Episcopal Church, and the ecclesiastical authority of the real Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will be the lone non-realigned member of the Standing Committee, who, one would imagine, the Presiding Bishop would have to recognize as running the diocese. (There is no reason for the Presiding Bishop to make such a finding, in the abstract, but the church needs to figure out to whom it should send diocesan mail.) Meanwhile, the other members of the former Standing Committee will likely hire Duncan as some kind of bishop under somebody's rules. Calvary Church and, perhaps, The Episcopal Church, will go to court to straighten it all out.

The real Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in The Episcopal Church eventually will call a special convention to put its house in order, and plans for that will no doubt go forward in parallel with the legal battles. After a brief moment of unexpected euphoria yesterday, I don’t think I want to think about that today.

Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchical?

On September 6, 2008, a paper by Mark McCall was posted on the Web site of the Anglican Communion Institute with the improbable title of “Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchicial?” The paper was introduced in an essay by Philip Turner, Christopher Seitz, and Ephraim Radner titled “Constitution and Canons: What Do They Tell Us About TEC?’

McCall, offering legal and historical arguments, concludes that The Episcopal Church is not hierarchical in the sense of other churches (such as the Roman Catholic Church, for example). Although I am neither an historian nor a canon lawyer, even I could spot certain flaws in McCall’s arguments. (He mistakenly believes, for example, that giving consent for the consecration of bishops has always been the primary responsibility of dioceses, whereas the original church constitution assigned that responsibility to the General Convention.)

What I lack in legal and historical qualifications is perhaps partly compensated for by my command of logic, and I have brought what expertise I do have to the analysis of Episcopal Church polity, arguing elsewhere that dioceses are inextricably bound to The Episcopal Church and subject to the General Convention. (See “Unqualified Accession.”) Certainly, this is what Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh has long argued in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

After reading McCall’s essay, I happened upon a paper copy of Dr. Joan Gundersen’s essay “History Revisited: Historical Background of the Proposed Amendment to Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” Joan wrote this in 2004 in response to an opinion by the chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh asserting that diocesan convention was free to modify the accession clause of the diocese’s constitution. From historical facts, Joan argued otherwise. (Her paper is available here.)

Rereading Joan’s paper convinced me that I should write a post about the problems I found in McCall’s arguments. I intended to direct readers to “History Revisited” in my essay. Discussing the matter with Joan, however, I discovered that she was eager to write a direct rebuttal to McCall’s arguments herself, and I was quick to encourage the project.

In fact, Joan produced a brilliant reply to McCall that, I think, blows his arguments out of the water. Moreover, she did this in very short order—I was particularly impressed with her efficiency—seemingly producing the 8-page essay “A Response to Mark McCall’s ‘Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchical?’” in no time. I think we spent more time editing and formatting the piece than she spent actually writing it. (Well, maybe not.)

Here is an excerpt from “A Response to Mark McCall’s ‘Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchical?’” This paragraph addresses the troublesome word “accede,” about which I also wrote:

To begin with, anachronistic assumptions permeate McCall's essay. If we are to understand what the eighteenth-century organizers of The Episcopal Church had in mind, we must be sure we are not reading later understandings into their documents. For example, McCall uses a U.S. Court of Appeals decision to define “accession” as becoming party to a treaty and refers to it as an “unusual” term in the law of contracts. That may be, but a simple consultation of the Oxford English Dictionary reveals a number of eighteenth-century examples of the use of the word “accede” to mean agreeing to a plan or opinion. Current dictionaries often use “submit” as a synonym. The founders thus used a word in a common context that people then would understand easily.

More typical (and more engaging) is the rich historical detail that Joan brings to her narrative. Here is a sample:

On March 29, 1784, a small group of clergy and laity from three congregations met to discuss forming an organization in Pennsylvania. However, they “were of the opinion, that a subject of such importance ought to be taken up, if possible, with the general concurrence of the episcopalians in the United States.” Two days later, at another gathering of the group, they called a meeting for May 24 for clergy and lay representatives from every Pennsylvania parish. When that convention met, it appointed a standing committee to “confer with representatives from the episcopal church in other states, or any of them; and assist in framing an ecclesiastical government.” This convention then outlined a list of principles for forming such a government and called for a meeting of the larger church in New York in October 1784. One of the principles was “That no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and laity in their respective congregations.” McCall reads this as reserving power to the state conventions (dioceses). However, that is not what it says. State conventions are not even mentioned, since Episcopalians in many states, including Pennsylvania, had no such convention. Pennsylvania numbers its state conventions beginning with that of 1785, rather than with the 1784 meeting.

(I spare you the footnotes in the above passages.)

It is hardly worthwhile for me to discuss “A Response to Mark McCall” in detail here. Instead, I invite you simply to read Joan’s essay and marvel at its effortless scholarship. You can find it here.

Of course, my interest in Episcopal Church polity is intensified by the upcoming vote for “realignment” (i.e., removing the Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church and making it a part of the Anglican province of the Southern Cone). The McCall essay seems designed to offer a credible argument for the propriety of such a move.

Because the Anglican Communion Institute has not encouraged schism in The Episcopal Church—senior fellow Ephraim Radner famously resigned from the Anglican Communion Network upon concluding that it was schismatic—I was surprised to find McCall’s essay offered under its sponsorship. McCall apparently offered the essay to the ACI unsolicited, and the ACI folks seem to have been taken in by McCall’s argument, even if they had qualms about its implications. I suspect that McCall is a proponent of “realignment,” but the ACI is not, though its principals seem willing to consider ecclesiastical arrangements within the Anglican Communion that I would consider destructive. I hope they will re-evaluate their embrace of Mark McCall’s arguments after they have read Joan Gundersen’s rebuttal.

A Hopeful Event

Across the Aisle’s presentation “A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternative Solution” concluded a couple of hours ago. (See “Across the Aisle Sponsors Unity Event.”) It was, I think, a wonderful gathering. Held in the undercroft of my own parish, St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, it attracted over 300 Episcopalians, three TV crews, and several print journalists. What was most impressive to me was the number of people involved in the planning, presentation, setup, publicity, and hospitality and how well everything came together. The professionalism of the event was much enhanced by the involvement of three St. Paul’s parishioners. Andy Muhl and Rich Creehan worked on publicity and setup, which included putting together a well-appointed stage and designing signage, lighting, and sound. (They were assisted by Director of Parish Operations Dick Ritchie. I’m not completely sure about who did what.) Jon Delano, who, among other things, is a local political analyst for a Pittsburgh TV station, was an excellent MC and timekeeper. That timings had been carefully attached to presentations meant that the program moved along at a brisk pace, leaving adequate time for a Q&A session at the end.

The program for today can be seen here.

The event began and ended with brief worship services, each of which included singing a hymn. (Someone remarked to me, “Episcopalians surely can sing!”) The presentations were uniformly excellent, although I particularly appreciated the addresses by the Rev. Jeff Murph, the Rev. Jim Simons, and Mary Roehrich. Murph and the Rev. Leslie Reimer spoke on “Why is staying with the Episcopal Church the right thing to do?” Murph spoke from a conservative viewpoint, and Reimer spoke from a more progressive perspective. Simons then talked about the good things happening in The Episcopal Church, a topic he has lately been writing about on his blog. Roehrich next offered a vision for a reorganized diocese of diverse views united in worship and mission.

Bishop Robert Duncan, who has promoted “realignment,” which is to say, schism, has, in his decade-long tenure as Bishop of Pittsburgh, emphasized our divisions, trashed The Episcopal Church and its leaders, and promoted animosity and alienation, rather than love and fellowship. Diocesan gatherings have become few and bitter affairs. Today’s event, however, was a wonderful, affirming opportunity for fellowship, and many attendees greeted old friends from other congregations whom they had not seen in years. It felt like being a part of a real diocese again.

The presentations concluded with a panel on “practicalities,” the nuts and bolts of what is going to happen if “realignment” is approved by the diocesan convention. The panelists were two attorneys, Tom Moore and Charlie Jarrett, and a priest, the Rev. Bruce Robison. This was perhaps the least successful part of the program, since the legal, canonical, and pastoral issues are complex and the time allotted for discussing them was necessarily limited. The overall message—the overall message of the entire afternoon, in fact—was that, in spite of the anticipated vote to “realign,” the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of The Episcopal Church will be alive and well in Pittsburgh after October 4 and that, even if our common life will have us facing new challenges, we have a future we can anticipate with genuine hope.

Not much was said about our future should the October 4 convention derail Bishop Duncan’s plans. Some of us worry that successfully defeating “realignment” could lead to an even more acromonious future should many of the parishes that want to leave The Episcopal Church not actually do so. I suspect that most people involved with Across the Aisle do not really think that the diocese will step back from schism at this late date, however.

The Q&A session did not want for questions, though I think we might have provided better answers. Many of the questions were very practical ones about repaying loans from the diocese, what to do at the convention after the critical votes, and how the celebration of 250 years of Anglican presence in Southwestern Pennsylvania would proceed if we find ourselves in two competing dioceses. There were some uncomfortable moments involving property and casting one’s lot with one diocese or another, and these reflected genuine ambivalence within Across the Aisle itself. Several times I wanted to get up from my front-row seat and say something like, “How can you ask us for an ‘equitable distribution of property’ when you won’t honor your ordination vows to The Episcopal Church?” Of course, I didn’t do that.

Various handouts were available, including an essay by Simons, PEP’s “Realignment Reconsidered,” and the latest issue of PEP’s newsletter.

I went home physically tired, but emotionally energized. I hope that most attendees went home energized as well.

Kill that picture!

Although my usual bedtime ritual is to read before falling asleep, recently, I have been listening to old radio dramas on CDs or watching recorded TV programs. For making a smooth transition from wakefulness to sleep, there is much to be said for the CDs; one can lie down, turn off the light, fully absorb the program material, and, imperceptibly, fall asleep. Both reading and watching TV sometimes result in my waking up in the wee hours of the morning propped up uncomfortably in my bed with the lights on.

Months ago, I decided to rewatch Babylon 5, the sci-fi series from J. Michael Straczynski, which I own recorded on videotape. Because the series has more than 100 hour-long episodes, I’ve had some opportunities to consider the transition to sleep when watching Babylon 5 at bedtime.

I find that I can stay awake watching the television longer than I can reading a book. At some point, I need to acknowledge that it’s time to get to sleep, however, even if I can stay awake and watch more Babylon 5. I have taken to laying my pillows flat on the bed, turning out the light, hitting the Sleep button on the remote control, and lying down to drift off. If all goes well, I will be asleep before the television turns itself off, but, in any event, I reset the tape counter before lying down, so I can rewatch what I can’t see lying in bed with my eyes closed.

The only thing wrong with my falling-asleep-to-the-TV routine is the brightness of the screen. Not only does it light up an otherwise dark room, but it often makes the room darker or lighter suddenly, a behavior not conducive to drifting gently off to sleep. Of course, I could adjust the brightness and contrast controls to minimize the light given off by the television, but this would mean readjusting them when I want to return to normal viewing—not an attractive option.

There is a Mute button on the remote control that turns off the sound. Why isn’t there a corresponding button to turn off the screen? Why not indeed! Such a control would be useful when you want to fall asleep with the TV on, but it might also be useful on other occasinons: when something is being shown that you don’t want to see or don’t want your children to see, for example.

Having thought up a new control for my remote, I began to consider what to call it. I immediately thought of labeling the button “Blind.” I realized, however, that this was not a good choice. “Mute,” which I take to be a verb, rather than an adjective, means to diminish (or extinguish) the sound from. “Blind,” as a verb, can have any of several meanings, but the one that comes to mind most readily is to make sightless. The television does not have sight, however; it emits light, rather than receives and interprets it. I began to consider other words meaning to prevent light from getting through: mask, veil, shroud, cloak, hide, shield, eclipse, obscure, conceal, or, ironically, screen. Other candidates include words that indicate reducing the light intensity: dim, bedim, darken, befog, or obfuscate. For labels on remote controls, short and obvious is always better than long and obscure. How about a Mask button or a Cloak button? Or, if the screen does not go completely to black, a Dim or Darken button? My personal favorite is the Mask button. This would make a fine addition to any TV remote.

So, is anybody going to add this control to their televisions?

Designing a Logo

I am on the committee of Across the Aisle that is responsible for the event we are calling “A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternative Solution.” (See my post “Across the Aisle Sponsors Unity Event.”) The publicity for this event represents Across the Aisle’s first use of a logo. In fact, it also represents the first “official” publicity that AtA even exists. (I have written about AtA, as has Harold Lewis on the Calvary Church Web site and Jim Simons on his new blog Three Rivers Episcopal, but AtA has hitherto issued no public statements of any kind.)

For a time, AtA had every reason to want to fly below the radar, as moderates and liberals who had long fought against an increasingly intolerant diocese began tentative discussions with conservatives who had come late to the campaign. Moreover, it was clear that some players in AtA are deeply suspicious of the media. One cannot hold an event intended to attract people from multiple counties without telling them about it, however. Publicity was essential for the September 13 event.

No one in AtA actually asked for a logo, and the group even seemed to get its name rather by default. Those in the predecessor group resolutely declined to take on an official name, much less a logo. This was rather an inconvenience when it decided to sponsor “A Pittsburgh Episcopal Voice” and tried to explain that it wasn’t really Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, even though few participants were not PEP members. “Across the aisle” was first used as an informal designation for the initial contacts between the original group and the 12 mostly conservative priests who announced their intention to stay in The Episcopal Church in a letter last January. As discussion expanded, the larger group began to look more like an actual organization, and it came rather naturally to be called “Across the Aisle.” I don’t know that there was ever any explicit agreement to call it that, but no one seemed to want to negotiate a replacement name. I rather liked “United Episcopalians of Pittsburgh” as a name, but my proposal for a name change did not get any traction.

One day recently, I had an inspiration. The cross of the Episcopal Shield could be linked to the horizontal bars of two capital As to form “AtA,” with the shield sitting in the middle. In just a few minutes, I had created a basic logo:


This was a perfectly adequate design, but it could hardly stand alone, so I began thinking about adding lettering to it. The outcome of this process was either wonderfully fortuitous or too clever by half. I identified a promising font in which to render “ACROSS THE AISLE” and discovered that it could be sized and placed to sit nicely over the sans-serif As. The first A of the legend creates a point atop the otherwise flat-topped left A, and the final E sits comfortably atop the right A. The text reinforced the spanning-the-divide motif of the horizontal bar through the center of the shield. This is the result:


That the eye tends to associate the large red A at the left with the A of “ACROSS” has the effect of making “CROSS” stand out as though it were a separate word. This emphasizes the fact that there actually is a cross in the Episcopal shield. Interestingly, when I first sent out the logo for comment, some people indicated that they liked it, even though I learned later that they did not recognize the cross as acting as the T in “AtA.” (The failure to see the T in this logo is even more remarkable than the failure, by most people, to see the arrow in the Federal Express logo. See “Deconstructing an Icon.”) Anyway, this logo is the one we used for most of the publicity for “A Hopeful Future,” but the original logo was used for posters, on which we paired “Across the Aisle” to the right of the logo with a tagline.

Here are two other rejected designs:




The first design simply did not work at all unless the logo was big. The addition of “DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH,” which I thought brought a certain balance to the design and provided more context for the group that it was to represent proved controversial. Some argued that the words suggested that AtA was an official initiative of the diocese or that they implied that we would soon be the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I argued that we were merely saying that AtA was within the diocese. A suggested solution was to delete “DIOCESE OF,” but I thought this was offensive to the many people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who do not actually live in the city of Pittsburgh. In the end, we dropped the legend at the bottom completely, perhaps for the best.

I am rather fond of the logo, but it may have a very short shelf life. If convention votes to “realign,” the people of AtA will be actively involved in reorganizing the diocese. That diocese should be one that includes all Episcopalians without prejudice, and there will be no need for AtA as an organization. What the future of AtA will be if the vote goes the other way, however, is unclear. Perhaps it will have an orgoing role.

Across the Aisle Sponsors Unity Event

Across the Aisle, a group of lay and clergy Episcopalians in Pittsburgh, has announced an event at my church on September 13. The two-hour presentation, including a Q&A period, is called “A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternative Solution.”

I described the origin of Across the Aisle in my post “Whither Pittsburgh?” The group has steadily gained participants since early this year and has been working on how the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (i.e., the real Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that is part of The Episcopal Church) will respond to the vote to “realign.” The (improper) vote to leave The Episcopal Church and to attach the diocese to the Anglican province of the Southern Cone is expected to pass, although passage is by no means certain. Whereas the Pittsburgh clergy will surely vote in large numbers for the measure, the lay vote is harder to predict. The September 13 event has two main purposes: (1) to encourage deputies to vote against “realignment” and (2) to explain how the diocese will be reorganized if the vote succeeds.

“A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternative Solution” will be held at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 1066 Washington Road, in the Pittsburgh suburb of Mt. Lebanon. It is scheduled for 1 to 3 PM. Refreshments will be served.

The press release about the event can be found here. A poster about the event is available here.

Good Grief!

In my August 11 post “Mistaken Primate,” I reproached Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for speaking of the “Anglican Church”:

In his second paragraph, Williams uses a phrase about which I constantly chide reporters, “Anglican Church.” What does the archbishop mean by this? Because he wants the Anglican Communion—a fellowship—to be a real, unified, worldwide church, he speaks as though it is. Well, it isn’t.

Williams’ use of “Anglican Church” was dismaying, but not surprising, as the archbishop seems to have it in his head that greater centralization within Anglicanism is the key to moderating conflict.

It is more distressing and damaging when “Anglican Church” appears in publications from The Episcopal Church, as it does in the essay by layperson Nelson Smith “Get off the sidelines: With teamwork if not affection, the Anglican Church can be a force for peace and justice” that recently appeared on Episcopal Life Online. In addition to its use in the subtitle, “Anglican Church” occurs three times in the body of the piece.

“Get off the sidelines” is a plea to Anglicans to do the work of the Christ’s Church even in the face of internal conflicts. We should be addressing poverty, injustice, and stewardship of the environment now, the author asserts. In particular,

Let the bonds of common mission and necessity carry the day for now over the “bonds of affection.” I have faith that God will be present throughout the process and may even help with the affection part. The sideline is no place for the Anglican Church—it must be “in the arena.”

This is, I think, a fine and timely message, except, of course, for the “Anglican Church” part.

Clearly, Smith is referring to the churches—note the use of the plural here—of the Anglican Communion. He is neither asserting the existence nor advocating the establishment of a monolithic “Anglican Church,” and he is likely unaware that Episcopalians as passionate as himself might be anguished by his use of the term. The editors of Episcopal Life Online should have required Smith to drop “Anglican Church” in favor of “Anglican churches,” “churches of the Anglican Communion,” or something similar.

I am not advocating censorship; “Anglican Church” is simply an erroneous designation that could mislead some, while giving aid and comfort to those insurgents in The Episcopal Church who, unable to get their way through the normal deliberative processes of the church, are conspiring to do so by converting the “Instruments of Communion” into instruments of coercion. In fact, I would not object to Episcopal Life Online carrying an essay advocating centralization of authority within the Communion. I do object, however, to the failure to edit material so as to avoid undermining the church gratuitously.

Sarah Who?

I just heard that John McCain has picked Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Like virtually everyone else in the country, I was surprised. I thought that the smart choice would have been Tom Ridge, a popular former governor of my state, Pennsylvania, and the first head of Homeland Security. Ridge has a good résumé and had the potential to deliver a large state that is most certainly in play in the fall.

Of course, I want McCain to lose in November, so I have to be pleased by his vice-presidential choice. On the positive side, from a Republican viewpoint, anyway, Palin’s plusses include having a strong anti-choice and reform-minded record and, in an election season in which Hillary Clinton energized women over the prospect of there being a woman to vote for, being female. Oh, and she apparently was runner-up for Miss Alaska in 1984. At 44, she is still a looker.

Alas, Palin doesn’t have many other obvious credentials for a job that, at least in the past eight years, has become very powerful. McCain has certainly found a way to grab headlines the day after Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, however.

The good news, from the Democratic viewpoint, is that the selection of Palin takes the question of qualifications off the table. If Obama’s qualifications for President are a little thin, Palin’s qualifications border on nonexistent. And, should McCain win, she will be a heartbeat away from taking over from an elderly President with a worrisome health record. Of course, should she become Vice President, we can expect that, unlike the current meddlesome office-holder from the heart of darkness, she will likely spend most of her time in her house at the Naval Observatory playing with her children.

But she can always do that in Alaska.

Fallback Position Redux

My last post, on the Trinity Cathedral resolution (see “Fallback Position”), brought in an unusual amount of mail.

Some of that mail addressed the particular details of the plan to share Pittsburgh’s cathedral with rival dioceses resulting from “realignment.” I appreciated this mail if only because I had not analyzed in depth the many details of the Trinity resolution before I wrote my essay.

More unexpected were a number of messages from members of the Cathedral Chapter. These were not aimed at chiding me for what I wrote but were, I think, seeking a fair hearing for the Trinity proposal. I don’t know what sort of feedback Chapter members may have received, but, given the polarization in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, it would not surprise me if they were criticized from both right and left.

Whatever my personal opinions on the wisdom, charity, or practicality of the Trinity Cathedral proposal, I am convinced that the Chapter is totally sincere in putting forward what it has. Moreover, whether or not the Chapter has found the “right” path for Trinity Cathedral, its members have to be admired for trying, to the best of their ability, to protect their church home. Other parishes with divided congregations seem to be accepting Bishop Duncan’s reassurances that all will be well after the realignment vote at face value and are taking no special action to achieve the best possible outcome for their churches in the aftermath of a split.

I suggested to one of my correspondents, Ed Murry, a member of the Chapter elected by members of Trinity, that I let him speak for himself in this forum, and he agreed to let me post his initial message to me:

Dear Dr. Deimel,

After reading the entries on your blog today, I would like to offer some insight and clarification relative to some important points regarding the resolution in question, and particularly the genesis of it. Let me first be clear that I am not speaking in my capacity as Senior Warden and Chair of the Executive Committee at Trinity, but as a congregant there, and as an observer of the process.

The concept for this agreement was formed in the winter of 2007 in discussions between members of our congregation and our clergy regarding ways to keep our Cathedral family intact during the difficult times ahead. From there, our Provost, Canon Cathy Brall, conceived the kernel of the idea that became the resolution that is now before us. Her ideas and this concept were first presented to our Congregation in a sermon and in our newsletter this past spring. The wording of the resolution was developed by various Chapter members and Cn. Brall. The two Chapter members who contributed the most to the actual drafting of the document, and to working out the innumerable details that it contains, are known to hold opposing views on the issues that are necessitating the resolution itself.

The document was vetted in full Chapter before being presented to Bishop Duncan—both as the Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and as Dean of our Cathedral, which is currently in Transitional status—about two weeks ago, and we received his endorsement, as you know, last week.

It must be understood that the purpose of the actions proposed by the resolution is a very simple one—to preserve the Church that is our Church, with it’s foundation in Christ. Past the unpleasantness that is pervading our Denomination is the desire to continue to function as a Church family, to preserve our traditions, our bonds, our outreach, and our spiritual home.

It is my hope that among the critiques, oratories, and pontifications regarding the actions that we propose, our true purpose will not be lost.

As additional information, the meeting that you note as being scheduled for September 14th is for the purpose of a vote on this resolution by our full Parish.

Please feel free to contact me if you would like any additional information or clarification, and to share the contents of this email as you may wish.

Sincerely,
Ed Murry

I have nothing more to add except for a final comment on the parish meeting on September 14, a point clarified in later correspondence. There will be a vote on the resolution at that meeting, at which time the resolution will become a plan that the Chapter will try to follow, or it will simply become a rejected proposal.

Fallback Position

I just received a press release from Pittsburgh’s Trinity Cathedral. The cathedral church of the Diocese of Pittsburgh has increasingly come under the influence of Bishop Robert W. Duncan, who is trying to take the entire diocese and all its assets out of The Episcopal Church.

The press release reports on a resolution from the Cathedral Chapter that, if approved by the congregation, “would make it possible for Trinity to continue to be the cathedral church for all who are currently part of the diocese, regardless of their future Anglican affiliation.“ According to the press release, the initiative “has the full support of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan.”

Here is the full release:

August 22, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TRINITY CATHEDRAL RESOLUTION ENVISIONS CONTINUED ACCESS FOR ALL

This September, Trinity Cathedral members will be discussing a resolution of Cathedral Chapter that would make it possible for Trinity to continue to be the cathedral church for all who are currently part of the diocese, regardless of their future Anglican affiliation. Their work has the full support of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan.

The Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will consider whether or not to realign as a diocese with another province of the Anglican Communion during its annual meeting on October 4. While a majority of the diocese's elected deputies supported the proposition on its first reading at the diocesan convention in 2007, other individuals and congregations have made it clear that they will remain with The Episcopal Church in the event that realignment receives final approval.

The resolution states that the Cathedral "does not wish to be compelled to make an exclusive choice" between Anglican worshipping communities. It goes on to lay out a practical system by which the Cathedral could serve both groups. That system envisions giving seats on the Cathedral's governing bodies to representatives of both contingents, inviting the bishops of both to serve as co-presidents of the Cathedral Chapter, and working with both on issues such as clergy appointments.

According to Cathedral Provost Canon Catherine Brall, the draft resolution was prepared over the last several months by the Cathedral Chapter and sent to all active members of the Trinity on August 22. Cathedral parish members will have a number of opportunities to discuss the resolution over the next three weeks, and then will come together for a final all-parish meeting on September 14.

Canon Brall praised the work of the Chapter, saying that the ideas encapsulated in the resolution "grew out of a very thorough and wonderful season of Chapter members seeking to envision how Trinity Cathedral might best position itself to fulfill its unique identity and destiny as a historic Penn Land Grant Church deeded to foster and preserve Anglican and Episcopal worship."

Bishop Duncan also thanked the Chapter for their work and commended the resolution to the Cathedral parish membership. "Trinity Cathedral, more than any other church building in the diocese, belongs not just to whoever may "win" the right to administer it in our sad divisions, but to all of us, to the city, and the whole region. I see this resolution as a good initiative to acknowledge and protect that unique role and to protect the Cathedral's future as Mother Church of all Anglicans and of the City," he said.

The Cathedral Chapter Resolution is available here (pdf):

http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/resolution082208.pdf

This story is available online at:

http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/trinitycathedral082208

-30-

I don’t want to get into the details of the resolution here. The Cathedral Chapter has clearly been busy, as the resolution is four pages long and is quite detailed in certain areas.

I had heard rumblings that such a resolution was in the works. Although it is being represented as a Cathedral Chapter initiative, I have a suspicion that it is an integral part of the bishop’s realignment strategy. At last year’s diocesan convention, the bishop’s address contained a section called “Behaviors for the Time Ahead.” I reproduce a subsection titled “Forgive” below, from pages 112 and 113 of the 2007 Convention Journal:

Do not dwell on the hurts. Let go of the things that wound. Make your confession often. It is our Lord’s direction to us in the prayer He Himself taught us.

It is in this spirit that I share with you one of my convictions about what our God is calling us to in our stewardship of assets in the years ahead of us. It is my growing conviction that all the things we presently hold in common need to continue to be administered for the good of all, even if we find ourselves in two different Anglican Provinces at the end of the day.

Consider Trinity Cathedral. It is, more than any other church building, the city’s and the region’s parish church, a true cathedral. It belongs to the whole community, not just the Episcopal Diocese, and certainly not just to those who may “win” the right to administer it. I intend to challenge the Cathedral Chapter at their annual January retreat to make plans for how our Cathedral can continue to serve all of us and all of the community – in the separated future that lies ahead. Magnanimity and grace can characterize our future, if we choose it.

How will those who hold Calvary Camp or the Common Life Center Property or the Growth Fund or Pool One administer these assets? For all, or just for some? These matters are a choice, after all.

I do not need to remind the Convention of how Diocesan Council dealt with St. Stephen’s Church in Wilkinsburg during the period when they were joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit: we fully supported their Youth Program despite the conflict between us. The present diocesan leadership has a track record, as does the national Episcopal Church. Locally, we also have a vision: “One Church of Miraculous Expectation and Missionary Grace,” impelling us to support each other wherever we can support each other, in areas and in concerns where we do agree. Forgiveness is Jesus’ witness from His undeserved cross. May it be our witness too.

Readers not thoroughly familiar with recent Diocese of Pittsburgh history should be reminded that any evaluation of the diocese’s generosity toward St. Stephen’s—likely the diocese did not wish to suffer the public relations fallout from killing a youth program for disadvantaged African-Americans—should also take into account the fact that the bishop, at an earlier convention, threatened to throw plaintiffs Calvary Church and St. Stephen’s Church out of the diocese if they did not drop the lawsuit against the bishop and other diocesan leaders.

As I remarked at the 2007 convention, Bishop Duncan was essentially saying that he is willing to share any diocesan property he is unable to steal outright. His fallback position is, at least from my perspective, less than a model of Christian charity.

No doubt, members of the cathedral are looking for ways to stay out of the crossfire that will be the result of a successful realignment vote. They are nurturing a vain hope; Trinity Cathedral is too prominent a diocesan asset to sit out the coming power struggle. Members should reject the resolution and steel themselves for some very rough times ahead.

UPDATE. Since I wrote the essay above, I realized that I may have misinterpreted the resolution on one point. According to a footnote, after formal Chapter approval and “legal review,” the special resolution will be “brought before a duly convened meeting of the parish congregation on Sunday, September 14, 2008.” The resolution says nothing about the congregation voting on the resolution.

A member of the Chapter (one elected by the Trinity congregation) wrote and assured me that the resolution did not come from the bishop. I did not, of course, suggest that it did, although, as far as I know, he was the first to propose a sharing arrangement such as is embodied in the Trinity resolution. I reject my correspondent’s further assertion that “the Cathedral property is neither his [the bishop’s] nor TEC’s to share, but Chapter’s.” This congregationalist attitude is inconsistent with Episcopal Church polity.

Whereas I can appreciate the reconciling spirit that motivated members of the Chapter, I question whether useful reconciliation is possible at this level. The resolution is not a peace treaty, but a battlefield truce. The resolution may buy time for Trinity Cathedral, or it may only invite litigation that, absent the resolution, would be directed elsewhere. The resolution cannot bring long-term peace, which would have to be negotiated (or litigated) at a higher level.

Another Take on Rowan’s Thinking

Shortly after writing my last post, “Mistaken Primate,” which questioned the clarity of the thinking of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, I discovered the essay “Too big a tent,” by Savitri Hensman, on the Guardian Web site. Hensman, you may recall, wrote the well-researched paper “Rewriting History: Scapegoating the Episcopal Church.”

I don’t often write posts primarily to refer readers to material elsewhere, but I want to make a rare exception in this case. My point in “Mistaken Primate” was that Rowan Williams’ priorities seem misplaced. (At best, they are counterintuitive to this Episcopalian.) I have no doubt that many will view my comments as being pedantic and uncharitable. Hensman, on the other hand, points to an instance of distorted priorities on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury that rises to the level of being life-threatening, though it is not his life that is being threatened. Her last paragraph:

Meanwhile, at the Lambeth conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury appealed for a “covenant of faith” that would “promise to our fellow human beings the generosity God has shown us”, and suggested “a Pastoral Forum to support minorities”. But to him, those needing greater generosity and pastoral care were mainly Christians with strong objections to same-sex partnerships. While he is a humane man, his priorities seem strange. If Anglicans are to remain relevant, and a force for good, bishops need to listen more carefully to people like Michael Causer’s family.

As Hensman explains earlier in her piece, Michael Causer was recently killed in an apparently homophobic attack. Seemingly, however, people like the 18-year-old Causer are less in need of “generosity and pastoral care” than, say, Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert W. Duncan or Bishop John-David Schofield, late of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Surely much of the value of the Anglican Communion lies in the willingness of its spiritual leader to offer such abstruse moral insights to the ignorant Anglican faithful.

"Too big a tent” can be read in its entirety here.

Mistaken Primate

It has long been known that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams holds personal views on the morality of homosexuality that differ from what is expressed in Lambeth Resolution I.10 of 1998. Archbishop Williams made it clear at the beginning of his tenure in his present position that he would set his personal views aside in order better to serve the Anglican Communion.

This past week, the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which have long been a source of consternation to liberals, have received a good deal of public scrutiny. Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times published correspondence from more than seven years ago between Rowan Williams, then Archbishop of Wales, and Dr. Deborah Pitt. In that correspondence, Williams laid out a very clear argument for faithful, monogamous, homosexual relations between persons who are not, by nature, heterosexual. Gledhill’s August 6 blog post carries a title that nicely conveys what now seems the very strong opinion of Williams’, yet one in conflict with his behavior as Archbishop of Canterbury: “Archbishop Rowan: gay sex comparable to ‘marriage.’” (I encourage you to read Gledhill’s blog post, as well as the various pages to which the post links. Time also published a helpful story the next day.)

It was not surprising that, on August 8, the Archbishop issued his own statement on his Web site. It reads as follows:

In the light of recent reports based on private correspondence from eight years ago, I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and thus as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.

That Resolution also recognises the need for continuing study and discussion on the matter. In the past, as a professional theologian, I have made some contributions to such study. But obviously, no individual’s speculations about this have any authority of themselves. Our Anglican Church has never exercised close control over what individual theologians may say. However, like any church, it has the right to declare what may be said in its name as official doctrine and to define the limits of legitimate practice. As Archbishop I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed.

The statement makes it obvious why the thinking of the present Archbishop of Canterbury is hopelessly muddled, and I’m referring neither to his views on homosexuality nor his conclusions about balancing one’s personal views against the need to represent the institution that pays one’s salary. Although I am inclined to agree with Mary Ann Sieghar’s conclusions in her essay “Rowan Williams was selected as a liberal and now he should govern as one,” I want to focus instead on some small details of Williams’ statement.

According to Williams, Resolution I.10 states “the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics.” This is error number 1 of his explanation. Resolution I.10 is simply a statement agreed to by a collection of Anglican bishops at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Such statements have never been binding or definitive, nor could they be unless the provinces of the Communion granted such binding authority to bishops attending Lambeth. In The Episcopal Church, of course, not even the entire House of Bishops can articulate a “position” of the church. Only the General Convention could do that. It is worth noting that many American bishops voted for Resolution I.10 only to head off more draconian wording. (As an aside, I would argue that a close reading of the resolution leads one to conclude that it says much less than many assert that it does. I could argue that quantum mechanics is “incompatible with Scripture,” but that would invalidate neither physics nor Scripture.)

Error number 2 is the assertion by Williams that Resolution I.10 provides him with authority to speak for the Communion. Certainly, The Episcopal Church has not authorized him to speak for it or for the Communion generally. The Archbishop speaks for the Archbishop; it is telling that he invariably catches flak from all sides whenever he makes a public statement. The Archbishop of Canterbury is described as the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion and as primus inter pares (first among equals, i.e., first among the primates), but he is still only one of 38 primates, whose authority in their own churches is quite diverse. In fact, the only reason Episcopalians freely acknowledge the Archbishop of Canterbury as the spiritual head of the Communion is that doing so is essentially meaningless. If we thought the Archbishop had any real power, we would be less generous. It is time to disabuse Williams of his delusions of grandeur.

In his second paragraph, Williams uses a phrase about which I constantly chide reporters, “Anglican Church.” What does the archbishop mean by this? Because he wants the Anglican Communion—a fellowship—to be a real, unified, worldwide church, he speaks as though it is. Well, it isn’t. This is error number 3. Williams does not speak for the Anglican Church because there is no such thing. I don’t even know the degree to which Williams can speak for the Church of England, which is a real church and is the only one in which he has any tangible authority. Given that everyone in the Church of England also seems to jump on Williams when he delivers a speech or issues a statement, I suspect that even the Church of England keeps the man on a short leash.

The Archbishop repeats the church-versus-fellowship error in the penultimate sentence. A church indeed has a right (may give itself the right) to articulate “official doctrine” and to “define the limits of legitimate practice.” The Anglican Communion is not a church and has not, in any case, established an agreed upon procedure for proclaiming acceptable doctrine and practice. I’m going to call this error number 4.

The Archbishop’s final sentence is simply a comedy (or, perhaps, tragedy) of errors. There is no “declared teaching of the church“ if the “church” is the Anglican Communion. Certainly, one can question Williams’ obligation to a nonexistent teaching of a nonexistent church, particularly if that requires him to act against both his personal belief and what he believes to be God’s truth. This is error number 5, at least. Finally, the Archbishop’s need to “discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed” seems like a commitment to discourage the Communion from seeking what he perceives to be the truth. Big error here: number 6, say.

I am sure that Rowan Williams’ martyr-like fidelity to his perception of his role in the Anglican Communion is widely seen as noble. I think it is pathetically (and, perhaps, pathalogically) mistaken. In this troubled period of the Anglican Communion’s history, the Communion needs neither a martyr nor an autocrat; it needs a leader. It’s too bad that Rowan Williams has not shown himself to be one.

Let’s Get It Over With

On October 4, 2008, the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will vote on “realignment.” In particular, a second vote will be taken on constitutional amendments that eliminate accession to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church. Adopting a new canon that declares the diocese to be in the Anglican province of the Southern Cone is also on the agenda. (Resolution One of the 2007 convention, which sets out the constitutional changes can be read in the Convention Journal, beginning on page 93. This year’s Resolution One declares the diocese to be in the Southern Cone and can be read here.)

It is a foregone conclusion throughout The Episcopal Church that these measures, so strongly advocated by Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert W. Duncan, will be passed by the convention. In Pittsburgh, neither proponents nor opponents are quite so certain. No one seems to doubt that the clergy will vote for the constitutional changes; the clergy vote favored it on first reading by 109 to 24. Even if some clergy get cold feet this time around, it is difficult to believe that opponents will be able to diminish substantially the more than 4-to-1 ratio of support for the measure achieved last year. The lay vote is less predictable, however. Last year, lay deputies voted in favor by 118 to 58, with 1 abstention. Even though they backed realignment by more that 2-to-1, several factors diminish the predictive value of that statistic. Deputies change from year to year, and even the number of deputies assigned to particular congregations change. More significantly, deputies understand that the vote this year is more than simply a symbolic protest. Finally, the willingness of significant numbers of conservative clergy who have strongly backed Bishop Duncan in the past but are now opposing realignment cannot but have some influence on the lay vote.

Whichever way the vote goes, and despite the bishop’s improbable assurance that “[t]here would be few immediate consequences for parishes” of a decision to realign, Pittsburgh Episcopalians will likely face a period of chaos after the October vote, particularly if realignment passes. In that case, there would be competing claims to diocesan and parish property; the bishop, if not already deposed, would be deposed; in the Calvary lawsuit, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas might deliver a serious blow to Duncan and to parishes claiming to have left the church; and The Episcopal Church would likely join the existing suit or initiate new litigation against Duncan, his supporters, and departing parishes. If the vote goes the other way, Duncan will be disgraced and might, as he has said he would, step down as bishop. Or he might not. Some of the more rabidly anti-Episcopal-Church parishes might declare their departure, inviting negotiation under terms of the Calvary lawsuit stipulation or lawsuits by The Episcopal Church. Perhaps, however, everyone would accept the status quo for a time, in the expectation that, after a December request, the Primates’ Council announced at GAFCON would recognize the Common Cause Partnership as some sort of Anglican province, with Duncan at its head and the Diocese of Pittsburgh a part of it, whatever that might mean.

The smart money, I am told, is betting that the House of Bishops is most likely going to postpone a vote on deposing Bishop Duncan at its September meeting, as the bishops would prefer the clarity of agreeing that he has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church after he has actually declared that he has left it. Episcopal Church supporters in Pittsburgh are very uneasy over this prospect. If Duncan is not deposed in September, when will he be deposed? Even if he is immediately inhibited after the October vote, postponing the deposition vote until the regular spring House of Bishops meeting would leave Pittsburgh in limbo for a painfully long time.

What will happen if the bishops fail to act in September, and the October realignment vote fails? The bishops will not have the cover of Duncan’s having declared himself to be out of The Episcopal Church to justify their voting for deposition. This question reminded me of part of the answer given by Duncan’s lawyers to item 19 of the supplement filed by the plaintiffs in July (see “Lies and Dodges.”) Item 19 began: “After obtaining passage of Resolution One, Bishop Duncan posted a statement ….” The defendants objected: “Defendants deny that Bishop Duncan ‘obtained’ passage of Resolution One. To the contrary, Resolution One was passed at the November 2007 Annual Convention of the Diocese pursuant to the Constitution of the Diocese by a majority vote of more than 400 lay and clergy voters representing all parishes in the Diocese.”

Technically, of course, the Bishop of Pittsburgh could not have passed Resolution One all by himself. To suggest, however, that he was not responsible for its passage is disingenuous in the extreme. He could, after all, have prevented its passage merely by declaring it to be out of order, which it clearly was. In fact, he lobbied hard for its passage. If this is the case, however, it raises an interesting question. No one imagines that Bishop Duncan will not be deposed if the Pittsburgh convention votes for realignment. The case against him for abandonment will be essentially the same as the case against Schofield—actually, it will be a good deal stronger—and the House of Bishops readily agreed to depose the Bishop of San Joaquin after that diocese’s realignment vote.

Consider this thought experiment. If the House of Bishops is willing to depose Duncan once the Pittsburgh convention votes for realignment, would it also be willing to depose him if the vote goes the other way? If not, why not? Can an abandonment determination against the bishop depend not on what the bishop does, but on what his convention does? Duncan has done what he has done whichever way the vote goes; irrespective of the vote, he would seem to be equally culpable. But, if what happens on October 4 has no bearing on whether Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church, what excuse does the House of Bishops have for not deposing him in September? The Title IV Review Committee made its determination more than half a year ago, and Duncan has only given the church more reason to believe in his abandonment since then. Not only would the House of Bishops avoid uncomfortable situations by acting in September—neither calling a special meeting for the purpose nor waiting until the spring meeting is very attractive—but the bishops would facilitate the prompt reorganization of the diocese after the convention votes for realignment or offer the prospect of electing a less divisive diocesan bishop in a timely fashion if it does not.

A September deposition of Bishop Duncan, it has been said, will anger his supporters and assure a vote favoring realignment. So be it. This bishop has been telling us since 2003 that a split of the diocese is inevitable. By now, practically everyone believes him, and most simply want to get the matter over with, so we can move forward. When everything is considered, there is every reason to depose Duncan in September and no legitimate reason not to do so. Let’s get it over with.

Lies and Dodges

The latest round in the long-running lawsuit by Pittsburgh’s Calvary Episcopal Church against Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan and other diocesan leaders cannot but remind one of why lawyers are—at least until you need one—generally held in such low regard in this country. Calvary, remember, sued to assure that churches and other property in the Diocese of Pittsburgh would continue to be used exclusively for The Episcopal Church (TEC). Now that the bishop is about to execute the final step of his plan to liberate (read “steal”) the diocese away from TEC, lock, stock, and barrel, his lawyers have resorted to lies and dodges (with a few tautological admissions and half-truths thrown in for good measure) to forestall court action until the getaway car is safely speeding away from the ecclesiastical bank that is to be the scene of the crime.

Calvary Church, remember, recently asked the court, pursuant to the stipulation—read very carefully point 1 of the stipulation—between it and Bishop Duncan, et al., to appoint a monitor to inventory and oversee the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and to allow individual parishes to pay their diocesan assessments into escrow accounts. (See “Calvary’s Cavalry Again Rides to the Rescue.”) According to the July 7 filing, “Defendants’ continuing efforts and announced intentions [to take the diocese and all its property out of The Episcopal Church] necessitate monitoring and oversight to protect the Property held or administered by the Diocese from transfer, use or disposition in violation of the Order.” The defendants have now responded to Calvary’s filing.

The new document, entered on August 4, is in two parts. The first part answers (in a manner of speaking) the Calvary assertions point-by-point. This is followed by “new matter” making the defendants’ own case against Calvary’s requests.

Answers to Calvary

It would be tedious to give a complete accounting of the response to Calvary’s requests of the court, but the overall tone can be understood by citing highlights. The strategy of this section of the filing is one of setting out a legal theory of why Duncan ought to be able to get away with his plan, to admit nothing but what is completely obvious, to deny that anything significant has happened yet, to blame others, to deny the relevance of the stipulation, to assert that TEC must bring separate suit to resolve matters at issue, and to suggest that those issues are really religious ones (and are therefore matters outside the court’s jurisdiction).

Whether now or later, the defendants need to argue for their right to remove the diocese from The Episcopal Church. This argument begins to take shape on page 1. They assert that

1. TEC is a “federation of Dioceses.”
2. The Diocese of Pittsburgh was carved out of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, which existed prior to TEC.
3. TEC has no “executive department.”
4. Neither the Episcopal Church constitution nor the diocesan constitution prohibit removing the diocese or its property from TEC.

I am at a loss to understand the supposed significance of point 3, which is something of a half-truth anyway. Point 2 is irrelevant, as was the fact, for example, that South Carolina was a colony before the formation of the United States. The real question is whether a diocese, once joined to the General Convention, becomes an indissoluble part of it. Just as the United States determined that union with a state cannot be undone, TEC would argue similarly regarding dioceses and the General Convention. The “federation of dioceses” theory is simply contradicted by all the facts, and Calvary has already put James Dator’s dissertation, which lays out the facts, into evidence. As for point 4, what is asserted is true if one is talking about explicit prohibitions. I have argued elsewhere that even the most strained argument for a diocese’s right to secede is unsustainable.

Several of the arguments that follow are repeated throughout the document, namely that property issues can only be adjudicated through legal action brought by TEC as a plaintiff, that actions are being taken for theological reasons beyond reach of the court, and that diocesan convention, not the defendants are making decisions. It has, of course, been a mystery why TEC has not become a party to the suit. The defendants assert that a new action would have to be brought by TEC, but, not being a lawyer, I am unsure what to make of such an assertion. That Bishop Duncan repeatedly blames convention for doing what he has so strongly advocated, is shameful behavior and an example of cowardly leadership. I suppose that he assumes that Calvary will not sue all 400 convention deputies. I expect—certainly, I hope—that Judge Joseph James will see through the transparent attempts to hide theft behind the first and fourteenth amendments, not to mention the members of the bishop’s flock that he has led astray.

The filing makes an interesting point about the new corporation (named “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh”) registered by Bishop Duncan, and what is asserted may even be true. (See “Which Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh?”) The corporation was registered, it is said, “not for the transfer of any property but to protect the name of the Diocese from a competing claim to that name by any entity formed by TEC.” Eventually, of course, TEC will claim that the diocese is what it has always been—it will have no need to create a “new” diocese—except that Bishop Duncan—then no longer a bishop of TEC—will not be its bishop.

Throughout this section, defendants argue that the stipulation is not relevant. In the following section of the defendants’ filing, they suggest that it was defectively drawn. It was, of course, the agreement that Calvary was able to extract from the defendants. The defendants also assert repeatedly that no offenses have yet been committed by the defendants. Calvary, on the other hand, points out the statements Duncan has made and the steps he has implemented to effect his plan to take the diocese outside TEC. What an irony it is that a bishop so fond of referring to the “plain meaning” of scripture insists that the court ignore the plain meaning of his own statements and actions! Repeatedly, the answers given by the defendants begin with: “Admitted in part and denied in part.” In many cases, this simply means that they admit that a statement was made and is properly quoted, while they deny the obvious implications of the text.

A worrisome statement appears on page 6: “If and when TEC takes action against Bishop Duncan, the Bishop will determine whether to challenge that act as a violation of the Canons of TEC and/or a denial of due process.” The House of Bishops should take note. (See also below.)

The defendants dismiss both the need for a monitor and the court’s “inherent authority” to appoint one. The answers to a number of paragraphs of Calvary’s filing read as follows: “Denied. Paragraph nn sets forth legal arguments and conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is required, the allegations are specifically denied. See also the New Matter [where defendants make their own argument].”

New Matter

The defendants’ own argument in this section is largely summed up in the titles it uses. I will spare readers most of the details, adding only those that seem especially notable. Many of the arguments repeat those in the answer section of the filing. The defendants argue

1. Plaintiff seeks relief that cannot be supported by the terms of the stipulation: Much of the argument here addresses the diocese’s self-declared right to withdraw from TEC.
2. Plaintiffs improperly seek relief on behalf of TEC, which is not a party to the stipulation.
3. Plaintiffs’ request for appointment of a monitor violates the United States Constitution: Defendants argue that determining what is for “the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese” is a religious decision.
4. Granting the relief plaintiffs seek would violate the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions: The claim here is that the decision is a religious one and that 400 convention deputies can’t be wrong. The bishop is claiming that his free-speech rights would be violated if Calvary’s requests were granted.
   
5. Plaintiffs’ claims regarding counsel fees are an improper attempt to end-run constitutional protections on speech and are otherwise improper: The use of “end-run” as a verb should be enough for the judge to reject the argument here, but likely won’t be. This section is more of the same.
   
6. Plaintiffs’ claims constitute an improper attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a receiver without satisfying the procedural or legal requirements that are a necessary predicate to obtaining such relief: My legal credentials fail me here. The defendants may have a point, but I am not qualified to judge. This is one of the rare places in the filing where there are a lot of cases cited.
   
7. Plaintintiffs’ claims relating to the board of trustees are legally and procedurally deficient: Again, I have to beg off. In practice, trustees invariably do what the bishop wants them to do. This is a very striking coincidence.
   
8. Plaintiff’s request for a supplemental “escrow” is procedurally improper and is barred by the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions: Various arguments are made here. My favorite is this one: “Plaintiffs have an interest that is adverse to those parish churches who support Diocesan realignment.” No kidding!
   
9. Plaintiffs’ claims are constitutionally improper to the extent they rely on allegations regarding Bishop Duncan’s Ecclesiastic status: The filing actually argues that Duncan will dispute his deposition.

What Next?

As an intelligent, rational human being, I find the defendant’s filing to be mostly nonsense. It is impressive, however, that one can argue for the indefensible with such sincerity and surface credibility. So many of the arguments made are defective, but establishing the fact requires a long chain of reasoning. Just how judges keep track of such logic I do not know. I hope Judge James is good at it. That said, I have to repeat that I am not a lawyer, and there are certainly legal arguments here that legitimately may carry weight.

A hearing on Calvary’s requests is scheduled in early September, before the scheduled House of Bishops meeting at which Duncan could be deposed. (A decision could be postponed.) Pittsburgh Episcopalians of every stripe will be awaiting the outcome of that hearing with some anxiety.

Realign with Me

It is difficult for others in The Episcopal Church to know how to treat the so-called “orthodox.” Most of us have no need to ban them from our churches or from decision-making bodies for their theological views, even when we find those views—I struggle for an appropriate word here—improbable. I am perfectly willing to engage these Episcopalians in discussion, even when anything worthy of the name “reconciliation” with them (or even tolerance by them) seems unattainable.

There is a point at which tolerance, Christian charity, or whatever you might want to call it, simply becomes a surrender to evil. Acceptance of differences, if extended to those who insist on being intolerant of everyone with a different viewpoint from theirs, simply destroys an institution, in this case, The Episcopal Church. When the “orthodox” assert that their view is the only valid one and when vows, rules, and traditions must be violated to advance God’s kingdom, it is time for others to say “no.”

These musings are occasioned by my having written what can only be considered a piece of satire aimed at those “orthodox” working for “realignment.” Such true believers cannot be reached through rhetoric, no matter how compelling, and railing against their depredations may not be salutary for one’s own spiritual health. Sometimes, however, even the subject of humor is able to laugh at it. Admittedly, humor, except for biting sarcasm, is hard to come by among the realignment crowd, but one never knows. Writing humor can keep one’s own emotional temperature down.

Anyway, I began with a line from a song that I realized I could change in a cute way, and I intended to write a song parody about Episcopalian loyalists. Poetry has a way of writing itself, however, and it quickly became a song about people on the other side. Frankly, I am writing this to defend myself against the inevitable charge of nastiness, not so much from my enemies, as from my friends.

The song is “Realign with Me,” to be sung to the tune of “You Belong to Me.” You can find the lyrics, commentary, and more here. If you think I need absolution, consider it requested in advance.

The more things change …

I recently received a request from the membership chair of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) to review the proposed request for membership renewals. Annual membership runs from September 1 to August 31, so we usually send out a solicitation in mid-summer. As I was thinking about what might be appropriate to say as we approach an autumn in which it is likely that our bishop will to be deposed and our diocesan convention will vote to leave The Episcopal Church, I decided to check the PEP archives to see what we have said in the past.

The first letter I came across was my missive from August 2005. I was struck by the clear vision it offered of the future. We easily could reuse the letter this year, substituting Joan Gundersen’s signature for mine and replacing future tenses with past tenses. I am not trying to build my reputation as a prophet, of course. Although many refused to see it, the plans of the forces of reaction in contemporary Anglicanism were anything but hidden three years ago, though they are even more in evidence now. Anyway, PEP did not have a Chicken Little view of the state of our church and communion in 2005—the sky really was falling.

For your amusement (or horror), I present the text of that 2005 letter below. If you wish. you can read it, as sent, here.

---

August 8, 2005

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

In the past year, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh raised its profile at diocesan convention, increased its educational activities, helped expose the Anglican Global Initiative constitution, and continued to be a source of information for Episcopalians across the nation. I am writing to ask you to renew and deepen your commitment to PEP so we can continue this work, and to reflect on where we are, how we got here, and what the future may hold for us.

As you know, mainstream Episcopalians in southwestern Pennsylvania formed PEP in the wake of the failure to prevent adoption of Resolution One at the 2002 diocesan convention. Our goal was to encourage the diocese to make room for and give voice to people who identified with traditional Episcopalian and Anglican moderation. No one imagined that this task would be accomplished quickly or easily, and no one anticipated how important the existence of PEP would become.

Two and a half years later, our diocese and bishop have become leaders in a worldwide effort that threatens not only to divide the Episcopal Church but also to shatter the Anglican Communion. As the Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity, has noted, this is a “well-funded temper tantrum of global proportions,” and one that is very damaging to the church’s ministry and mission. Bishop Duncan boldly teaches that the Episcopal Church is really two churches with incompatible theologies—an “orthodox” theology insisting on the primacy of scripture and the “faith once received,” and a “revisionist” theology espoused by “counterfeit” Christians who have been seduced by modern culture. With support from primates of various Anglican provinces of the “Global South,” our bishop and his allies have sought to have the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes recognized as the “real” Episcopal Church in the U.S., and they have sought formal mechanisms to convert a fellowship of churches into a hierarchical structure with the power to enforce doctrine and discipline. Our bishop has, in other words, labored to impose Puritan doctrine and Roman Catholic polity on our church and communion. We believe that this is a program that, rather than offering a via media alternative to the extremes of radical Protestantism and Roman Catholic authoritarianism, combines the worst features of each.

PEP, along with its allied groups in Via Media USA, is doing what it can to address this problem and achieve its stated goal. This has proved more difficult than we imagined at the outset. We are opposing a substantial, well-financed, and determined insurgency. Even with modest resources, we have generated publicity and enthusiasm for efforts to preserve the Episcopal Church in places where our voices are silenced or ignored. We are making the road to power neither straight nor plain for the Network and its followers. PEP’s goals have expanded as we continue to determine how best to preserve our Anglican tradition, provincial autonomy, and Episcopal polity here in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The next twelve months will be turbulent. While Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold continues to speak of reconciliation, Bishop Duncan and his allies speak only of their coming righteous victories over the forces of error. In Pittsburgh, faithful parishes face the threat of being expelled from the diocese for trying to defend Episcopal Church canons. General Convention 2006 will likely neither apologize for the work of General Convention 2003 nor choose a conservative successor to Bishop Griswold. It will be subjected to withering criticism from the right.

Lambeth 2008 may see neither a united Episcopal Church nor a united Anglican Communion. The Network is threatening to separate from the rest of our church if its demands are not met, and it is already organizing as its own province, founding new parishes that are not affiliated with the Episcopal Church. It has created international structures that exclude the Episcopal Church, and it has argued for expulsion of the Episcopal Church from Anglican Communion bodies. We cannot sit by and let this happen.

When the dust settles, we may find ourselves in a smaller Episcopal Church, but a church better able to relieve human suffering, to offer a principled theological perspective to people going forward into the twenty-first century, and to follow the ongoing truth of Christ as revealed in all creation. We may find ourselves in a smaller and leaner Anglican Communion as well, but we will likely remain in communion with Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico, Central America, Japan, and several others.

PEP will continue to be an influence in the Anglican world, but the needs closer to home will become increasingly urgent. A portion of our own diocese is edging ever closer toward leaving the Episcopal Church. Our voices, and through us, the voices of the Episcopal Church, must continue to be heard. If our diocese splits or if its leadership is handed a definitive and crushing defeat, we will need many hands to heal and strengthen those parishes and individuals remaining loyal to the Episcopal Church in the aftermath. PEP and other Via Media groups increasingly need to plan with an eye to the future of our church when the current struggles are behind us.

Now, more than ever, we need you to renew your membership in PEP. Your financial support is also critical. Please complete the enclosed form and return it with a check to the address indicated. Invite your friends to join. Copy the form; tell people how to download a membership application from the Web; or contact me for membership brochures.

We need volunteers now to monitor events in the church and beyond, to carry out particular projects, and to look for activities that advance the mission of the Episcopal Church and advance our understanding of the gospel of love, compassion, and liberation. If you can spare some time, please contact me at (412) 343-5337 or membership chair Wanda Guthrie at (724) 327-2767.

I ask you for your ongoing prayers for PEP, for the Episcopal Church, and for a Christianity that seeks to minister with faith, intelligence, and charity to our modern world. I thank you for your support and wish you God’s peace.

Faithfully,

[signed]

Lionel Deimel
President

Enclosure

A Collect for Lambeth

An essay by Douglas LeBlanc, “Lambeth unplugged,” was posted to Episcopal Life Online today, the day before the opening of the 2008 Lambeth Conference. In it, LeBlanc laments the fact that reporters have largely been excluded from all but plenary sessions at Lambeth in the past, and plenary sessions have been de-emphasized in the 2008 program. “I hope this year’s conference,” he writes, “will allow journalists to do what they do best: function as observers who capture the mood of an event by describing what they see and hear firsthand.” Trying to control the information available to reporters is unworthy of a church and distorts the perception of events, he notes.

The essay got me thinking about Lambeth in a new way, which is to say, other than with fear and trembling. Many have suggested that we pray for the bishops attending the event, but LeBlanc reminded me how frustrating and arrogant it is that Anglican bishops too often meet in secret and without the counsel of priests, deacons, and laypeople. This gave me an idea for a different sort of prayer, and so I offer the following

Collect for the 2008 Lambeth Conference

Eternal God, who is revealed to us in the written word, incline the hearts of our Anglican bishops to allow their conversation to be observed and recounted; and may those entrusted with telling the story of their efforts be faithful in their accounts, insightful in their observations, and blessed through their involvement; that your servants may become better able to contribute to the mission and maintenance of the Church of your Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.

Calvary’s Cavalry Again Rides to the Rescue

As the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh heads toward a “realignment” vote on October 4, 2008, when Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan plans to declare the entire diocese removed from The Episcopal Church to become a diocese of the province of the Southern Cone, loyal Episcopalians in Pittsburgh are becoming increasingly anxious about the looming apocalypse. Yesterday, however, they were given some reason to cheer, as Calvary Church attorney Walter P. DeForest rode to court on his white horse to file papers with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Calvary is petitioning the court to appoint a “monitor to inventory and oversee property held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to assure compliance with this court's order of October 14, 2005,” as well as to request “creation of an additional escrow account(s)” for parishes concerned about the use of their funds by the diocese for the benefit of a church other than The Episcopal Church.

Recall that Calvary sued Bishop Duncan and other leaders of the diocese in October 2003, as resolutions proposed by the bishop and passed by a special convention in September were clearly designed to facilitate the removal of property from the control of The Episcopal Church. The suit was described in a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on October 25, 2003. The original filing and subsequent court documents may be found on the site of the county prothonotary.

The legal battles seemingly reached a resolution two years later, when the parties filed a stipulation, enforceable by the court. This agreement asserted, among other things, that property held by the diocese (“the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America”) would remain with the diocese, even if some parishes left The Episcopal Church. The stipulation also laid out an elaborate procedure for dealing with parish assets of congregations wishing to leave the church. These provisions, from the standpoint of the plaintiffs, anyway, were intended to prevent a sympathetic diocese from making sweetheart deals with dissident congregations. I doubt that anyone thought that agreement to the stipulation would put an end to the litigation, but it closed one chapter in what has been an ongoing saga.

Recently, of course, Bishop Duncan has made his plans as clear as anyone might desire; he expects to leave The Episcopal Church and take the diocese with him, lock, stock, and barrel. (See “Frequently Asked Questions About Realignment” from the diocese. Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh has analyzed this document in its “Realignment Reconsidered.” A quite different argument against realignment has been made by the Rev. Dr. Jim Simons.) Although the bishop’s scheme has been known with certainty for more than a year, and although Pittsburgh Episcopalians are planning for a post-Duncan future (see my post “Whither Pittsburgh”), Calvary has made no substantive move in court until now. I suspect that Bishop Duncan’s registering a new Pennsylvania corporation called “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” (see “Which Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh?”) may have been the final straw that moved Calvary into action.

The new filing can be read here. (This version of the prothonotary’s PDF is searchable and loads faster.) In particular, Calvary seeks to have a monitor appointed with the following duties (this is taken from page 16):

• To conduct an accounting of the Property (real and personal) held or administered by the Diocese and its use since October 14,2005;
  
  
• To oversee the Property (real and personal) held or administered by the Diocese, and assure that there are no transfers of Property (real or personal), held or administered by the Diocese, outside of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America and that such Property is not used for purposes of separation from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

Calvary also seeks to allow any parish wishing to do so to pay its diocesan assessment into an escrow for the time being. The provisions requested are the following (this is taken from page 17):

1. Any and all amounts that have become or become due and payable to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese"), except for payments due for insurance coverage and/or other direct pay benefits obtained by the parish through the Diocese, may be deposited with Plaintiffs' counsel in an interest bearing escrow.
   
   
2. Promptly after deposit of any such payment into escrow, counsel for Plaintiffs shall provide notice to counsel for Defendants of the date and amount of such deposit and the identity of the parish on behalf of which the deposit has been made.
   
   
3. Payment into escrow by each parish of funds that have become due and payable to the Diocese to date or that become due and payable in the future shall be treated as payment to the Diocese of such funds on the date of such payment into escrow for any and all purposes related to the good standing, rights, responsibilities, and/or privileges of the parish as a member of the Diocese and, upon making such payments, the parish shall not be considered delinquent or in arrears in its payments to the Diocese or, for that reason, deemed a Transitional Parish.
   
   
4. Any assessment or other funding that the parish has been paying, or pays, directly to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States shall not affect, or be affected by, this Stipulation, and may continue without bearing on the instant action or the parish's good standing, rights, responsibilities, and/or privileges as a member of the Diocese.
   
   
5. Upon subsequent Order of Court, counsel for Plaintiffs shall promptly disburse all sums deposited in escrow in accordance with the Court's ruling and instructions.
   
   
6. This stipulation is without prejudice to Defendants' defenses and objections to the petition as set forth in, inter alia, Defendants' amended new matter and is without prejudice to the right of any party to move to terminate or amend this escrow agreement.

It should be interesting to see how Bishop Duncan and his legal team try to convince Judge James that the requests of Calvary Church are not justified by the facts.

Scary Women

While reading various stories written around the world in the aftermath of GAFCON, I happened into a story from a South African paper. Clicking around to learn more about the site—I never did figure out what city is home to The Times—I saw that, like so many newspaper sites, this one included a brief question soliciting readers’ opinions. The question in this particular survey was: “Are men more afraid of crime than women?” My immediate reaction was that I didn’t realize that South African men were particularly afraid of women. I selected an answer at random to see the results so far. Apparently, by about 2 to 1, people think men find women scarier.

Of course, maybe the real problem is with South African survey writers.