Robbery on the Rails

I attended the “Next Steps: Moving Forward with Grace” event sponsored by the Episcopal Church’s Diocese of Pittsburgh last night. It was held at the downtown Trinity Cathedral, and I planned to ride the “T,” the light rail system of Port Authority of Allegheny County. I can board a train three blocks from my house and get off a block from the cathedral.

I don’t make the light-rail trip downtown often, but I keep tickets around, so that, when I do use the “T,” I don’t have to worry about exact change. The tickets can be bought in books of 10, and, a few years ago, the tickets were sold at a small discount. This is no longer true, but the tickets still allow riders to avoid a rush-hour surcharge that must be paid by those using cash.

Since I am not a regular rider, I don’t keep close tabs on Port Authority news, but I did know that fares had been raised since I last used the “T.” From past experience, I also knew that I would not be able to use one of my old tickets without paying an additional fee. I find this policy irritating—I wonder if the Port Authority folks have heard of the Forever stamp—but I was used to it. In fact, the tickets indicate on the back that they are “subject to fare changes”:


To avoid any surprises upon boarding, I called the customer service number on the ticket to find out how much I would have to pay. After a lengthy wait on hold, I was told that the fare change had been made in January, and riders had been given three months to use their tickets, which, in October, were no longer accepted. This was a very unpleasant and unexpected surprise. The tickets say, after all, “this ticket may be used for one ride through one zone,” and “subject to fare changes” does not suggest, at least to me, that the ticket could become worthless.

Before I got a chance to confirm that a transfer still costs 50 cents, I accused Port Authority of being a bunch of thieves, whereupon the customer service agent hung up on me. The customer, I suppose, is no longer always right and doesn’t even have to be listened to.

Having just been relieved of $12.50 by my local transit agency, I don’t think I’ll buy any more tickets. At least when I buy a stamp, I know it will always be worth at least what I paid for it.

Stewards, Not Owners

Not surprisingly, the disposition of parish property of dissident Episcopal congregations repeatedly surfaces as a topic of conversation on The Houses of Bishops and Deputies e-mail list. It is a critical issue, since The Episcopal Church has no power to keep its members from leaving. If congregations want to depart, whether to join a different church or even to found a new church, there is nothing that can stop them, except, of course, if they want to take parish property with them.

I have written about the church property issue myself, in an essay that appeared in The Living Church, and elsewhere. I have despaired of writing (or finding) the definitive treatment of the topic, but I am always on the lookout for someone with something wise to say on the matter. This morning, a post on the e-mail list by the Very Rev. George Werner caught my eye, and I asked him for permission to reproduce it here, which he graciously granted. I have made minor edits for the sake of clarity, to correct obvious errors, and to display the text more attractively on the Web, but what follows is otherwise unchanged from what Dean Werner wrote:

I reluctantly, and with sadness, find I must reply to an argument being offered concerning the property of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The claim has been made that the property belongs to those who are currently tending it. One of the clearest of principles in The Episcopal Church (and many others) is that we are stewards, not owners. It is a scriptural concept, that we are the temporary managers whose job description is to maintain and enhance (see Parable of the Talents, Mt. 25:14–30) that with which we have been entrusted and then pass it on to our successor.

It has worked brilliantly for centuries. Clergy are entrusted with Church buildings, land, chalices, vestments, linens, and other appointments of worship and community. Our generous forebears have left behind dedicated funds for music, for scholarships, for endowments, for personnel positions, and for maintenance of all the above.

Unfortunately, from time to time, some group makes the judgment that “this time is special” and that “we are more able, more effective, more holy, more scriptural, more just, or more righteous than others. Therefore, we must take ownership of that we once accepted in trust as stewards.” But I would think that such a self-praising judgment needs to be left to the One true Judge, who will separate the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff.

I question neither the sincerity nor the commitment of such folk. I understand that I am a dinosaur who actually believes that vows should be taken seriously. At my Ordinations to Diaconate and Priesthood, not only did I respond orally and positively to accept the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church, but I also signed the documents of that vow before the ceremony could be continued.

I believe in the Communion of Saints. For me that includes the hundreds and the thousands of wonderful lay people who gave so much of their time, talent, and treasure to build these communities and then passed them on to another generation. In both our sacred and secular worlds, there are too few voices of gratitude for those who have given us so much and too many shouts of “mine” in this difficult moment of God’s history.

This is my thirtieth year as part of this Diocesan family. When I arrived, we were just completing the last significant Diocesan fund raising for mission. Though other campaigns were proposed, none came to fruition. So the property and funds in question were the product of decades and centuries. (I was a steward for Trinity Cathedral for more than twenty years of Trinity’s twenty-five decades of history.)

Serving as a steward was a great honor and privilege for me and I never felt the need or desire to be an owner of such a treasured place and gloried history. But then, I am a dinosaur who believes in vows and commitments, and dinosaurs are best known for being extinct.

— George Werner, 31st President of the House of Deputies; Dean Emeritus, Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh

Grace and Charity in Wonderland

This past week, my parish church, St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, received a letter from Robert G. Devlin, “chancellor” of the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” It included, as an enclosure, a copy of the stipulation agreed to by all parties in the Calvary lawsuit and signed in October 2005. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the letter was sent to each of the churches that have declared that they are remaining in The Episcopal Church.

The letter said, in part:

It is our prayer that you do not wish to separate yourselves from the Diocese, but whatever your position, we wanted to make you aware of the Stipulation and Order signed by President Judge Joseph M. James of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Specifically, the Stipulation and Order directs certain steps that a Parish Church shall take if it elects to disaffiliate with the Diocese.

The Rev. Jim Simons, president of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recognized by the church’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, was quoted in the Post-Gazette story as saying, in response to the Devlin letter, “It’s a bit like Alice in Wonderland.”

Indeed it is. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and, I hope, most “normal” people have one view of reality. What the Post-Gazette calls the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)” has quite another.

Bob Devlin, of course, was writing for those former Episcopalians who voted to “realign” at the October 4, 2008, diocesan convention. They are not part of a diocese, since they have created no new organization. They have improperly claimed to represent a diocese of The Episcopal Church, while claiming not to be in The Episcopal Church, and they are temporarily—and, I assert, illegally—in possession of many of that diocese’s rather considerable assets. They are not in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, as that province’s constitution and canons do not provide for dioceses except “in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.”

I should also note that, as much as I appreciate the Post-Gazette’s attempt to distinguish between the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” and the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican),” not only is the latter not a diocese, but the Episcopal Church diocese has more right to be called “Anglican,” both institutionally and theologically.

Let me return to the stipulation, about which Mr. Devlin was reminding his correspondents. Calvary Church sued Bishop Duncan and other diocesan leaders on behalf of the Episcopal Church diocese, in an attempt to keep diocesan leaders from improperly transferring property out of the control of The Episcopal Church. Defendants in the lawsuit managed eventually to have the diocese added as a defendant, a move that had the primary effect of allowing their legal costs to be paid by the diocese (and, therefore, in part by the potential victims of their depredations).

The stipulation that was agreed to by plaintiffs and defendants in 2005 had two provisions that are now of great moment. The first item deals with property directly controlled by the diocese:

Property,.whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held or administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. For purposes of this paragraph, Property as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish of the Diocese shall not be deemed Property held or administered by the Diocese.

The second item deals with parish property and begins:

In the event a parish in the Diocese (hereinafter “Parish Church”) shall elect to disaffiliate with the Diocese, the Parish Church shall give written notice of that election to the Diocese by delivering a copy of the notice, signed by the Rector and the Vestry, to the Diocesan Bishop (hereinafter “Bishop”), to the Board of Trustees of the Diocese (hereinafter “Board of Trustees”), to each member of that Parish Church and to the Rector and Vestry of each other Parish Church of the Diocese. Upon receipt of such notice, the Bishop and the Board of Trustees shall meet with representatives of that Parish Church and any other parties expressing an interest to discuss in good faith the disposition of all Property specifically held for or in the name of the Parish Church.

The stipulation goes on to specify a complex negotiating process whereby disposition of the parish property is to be determined. This, of course, is the process in which Devlin suggests parishes wishing to remain in The Episcopal Church need to engage.

Devlin—why does this sound like a name from an allegory?—assumes that “Diocese” means the entity of the realigners. According to the Post-Gazette story, Devlin “said the language in the stipulation refers to the diocese that signed it in 2005, meaning the diocese that voted to join the Southern Cone.” The first part is certainly true; there was only one diocese to talk about in 2005. In fact, the diocese that voted, albeit invalidly, to join the Southern Cone was still the diocese of The Episcopal Church.

Devlin then went on to say, “The entity that adopted the resolutions [to realign] on Saturday is the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” He seems to put a good deal of stock in the fact that Bishop Duncan registered a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation called “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” this past spring. (The Episcopal diocese has always been an unincorporated association.) The rub, of course, is that the stipulation states that diocesan property stays with “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America [emphasis added].” How can this be whatever entity Mr. Devlin thinks he is representing if its members claim not to be in The Episcopal Church?

The October 4 story from ENS quoted some of Bishop Duncan’s remarks at a news conference after the convention. He described the way the convention had done its work as “graceful and charitable.” “[W]e wanted to show ourselves to be Christian people who followed Jesus in a way that speaks of his charity, his grace and his love,” he said.

The rest of Devlin’s letter, however, belies any protestations of Christian grace and charity. He emphasized that “the Diocese”—whatever it is that Devlin thinks he represents—“is committed to following” the stipulation’s process for negotiating parish property. As we have seen, however, “the Diocese” must be the Episcopal Church diocese, so the negotiation should be between the diocese whose Standing Committee is headed by Simons and the parishes trying to leave The Episcopal Church, thereby turning Devlin’s view of what must happen on its head.

Devlin then went on to threaten parishes’ insurance coverage: “[I]f you have decided not to remain part of the Diocese, then we need to promptly schedule a time to discuss your parish’s continued participation in various Diocesan insurance plans.” He ends his letter with this disingenuous line: “You are in our prayers at this difficult moment in your parish leadership.”

Lewis Carroll was never so imaginative.

Parishes are being advised to ignore Devlin’s letter.

Recycling Warning

Recycling dumpsters for paper seem to have sprung up in every parking lot lately, and I have begun taking my old newspapers to these cheery green containers to rid myself of the unneeded trash. Usually, I drive to the paved parking-lot-cum-playground of the Catholic elementary school two blocks from my house. The other day, however, I discovered that the nearest public library, about 8 blocks further away, also has a couple of green dumpsters in its parking lot.

This week, after a bit of soul searching as to whether supporting the library, which I use, justified the use of extra gasoline required over that needed to support the elementary school, to which I have no connection, I decided to take a substantial collection of old newspapers to the Castle Shannon library.

Bad decision. The library has about half a dozen parking spaces at the side of the building and a rather substantial parking lot at the rear. During library hours, there are usually a few cars parked in the small parking area, but I have never seen cars in the larger lot, where, as it happens, the paper dumpsters are located. As I am used to doing at the elementary school, I drove into the parking lot Wednesday and maneuvered my car so that my trunk was as near as possible to the openings in the sides of the dumpsters.

Since the lot was otherwise empty, I paid no attention to the location of the marked-off parking spaces. Just before I brought the car to a stop, I heard my car scrape against something. A quick glance to my left made it clear that I had driven over one of those low concrete barriers that are placed at the ends of parking spaces. Such barriers are intended to be struck by a car's tires. At slow speed, this is an effective way of warning drivers that they have driven as far forward as need be into a parking space. Alas, since I was trying to park near the dumpsters and was oblivious to the layout of the lot, I had driven over the barrier at an angle nearly perpendicular to that at which cars are supposed to approach it. As a result, my front tires missed the barrier completely, and the concrete scraped against the lowest equipment underneath the front-end of my car.

I was not pleased, since I hadn’t even seen the barrier, but I stopped the car, opened the trunk, and disposed of my newspapers. When I got back into the car to leave and started the engine I immediately became alarmed. My car suddenly sounded like a jet plane, as if its muffler had been removed. I tried to convince myself that the sound wasn’t too loud, but it was difficult not to think that I had either displaced or destroyed part of the exhaust system. I drove my car for another couple of days before becoming resigned to the need to have it looked at by my local mechanic, my own visual inspection had been inconclusive.

I dropped the car off at the garage yesterday, expecting a repair estimate of $100 or so. I got the bad news late in the afternoon. I had opened a small crack in a flexible steel pipe. A replacement part was not even readily available, but I was told that the garage could repair the pipe for about $250. Ouch! I picked up the car today, and it now sounds as it did Wednesday morning, that is, perfectly normal.

I want to find someone to blame for my $250 misfortune, but I suppose the lesson here is simply that, when driving into an unfamiliar parking lot, one should be observant enough to construct a mental model of the space qua parking lot before tending to one’s business.

I think I’ll help out the Catholic elementary school next time.

Christian Unity

A friend of mine has systematically been reading my poetry on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. Her comments on one poem inspired my rereading a few of my older poems myself. I was particularly struck by “Christian Unity.” I’ve always liked this poem, but I had forgotten exactly when I wrote it.

“Christian Unity” was written at the end of the summer of 2002, just after Resolution #1, the so-called South Carolina Resolution, had been introduced for consideration at Pittsburgh’s November diocesan convention. The resolution was a kind of conservative shot across the bow of General Convention 2003, and its introduction was the event that led eventually to the founding of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh.

You can read the original Resolution #1 here. The text alarmed moderates and liberals in the diocese, and there were attempts to modify the resolution so as to make it less objectionable. From a centrist perspective, this was only so successful. The resolution as passed can be read here, which also includes the final, rather lopsided, vote tally. Here is an excerpt:

We affirm that in God’s love for all people, the only sexually intimate relationships receiving His blessing in Scripture and Tradition are those of a man and a woman within an intended life-long, faithful, marital covenant. The Church cannot bless any other sexual relationship, and we cannot recognize the blessing of any other.

When I wrote the poem, I had no idea that such bitter times were ahead for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The poem is irenic and perhaps even evangelical. At least as far as the Pittsburgh diocese is concerned, however, it may have been naïve. Ironically, both the initial and final versions of the resolution expressed a commitment to The Episcopal Church. Many of the people who voted for this resolution also voted last weekend to leave The Episcopal Church.

My poem is reproduced below.

Christian Unity
by Lionel Deimel

Around the table gathered, we
Are one in sweet community,
For Christ has ransomed one and all
Who answer to his loving call.

We worship God in many ways;
We celebrate on different days;
But Jesus is the guiding star
For Christians near and Christians far.

God’s plan for us is seldom clear;
We may a different drummer hear;
Yet, if we study and we pray,
The kingdom will be ours some day.

So let us vow to never fight
About who’s wrong and who is right
Concerning truths we cannot know
That turn our Christian friend to foe.

And let our worship fit our needs;
Let us unite in Christian deeds;
May we God’s love and mercy show
To those who don’t the Savior know.

Realignment Blues

I returned home from the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh a couple of hours ago. I have been busy updating the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh Web site and sending out a PEP press release.

As readers are likely to know by now, the diocese voted today to “realign” to the Southern Cone from The Episcopal Church. This process involves several canonical impossibilities, not to mention theft—there is no other proper word for it—of Episcopal Church property. I have written about the impropriety of “realignment,” however, and I don’t much want to revisit the subject now.

Many things happened today that deserve comment, but I want to restrict myself to only one at this time. I may write about other matters later.

At the end of the convention, the diocese distributed a new brochure, “Realignment Realities: What You Need to Know.” The brochure is an attractive, full-color, tri-fold, enameled paper affair. (You can see it here. I apologize for the fact that the dark colors of the brochure make it hard to scan well. If you have trouble reading the text, enlarge the image. It is sharper than it may at first appear.) Here are some assertions of the brochure (my comments are in italics):

1. The diocese is now in the Southern Cone “temporarily while a new Anglican Province for North America is being organized."
   These people have big dreams.
   
2. The diocese is no longer a part of “‘The Episcopal Church’” (quotes in the original).
3. The Episcopal Church cannot remove clergy and lay leaders from their positions.
   They don’t have to. The leaders have removed themselves from The Episcopal Church.
   
4. By acting together, the realigners will be in the best position to defend themselves from lawsuits. “[O]ur diocesan legal team is highly experienced in cases like ours and fully committed to protecting the resources of the diocese.”
   What, exactly, are “cases like ours”? Only San Joaquin has tried to do what Pittsburgh has done, and that litigation won’t go to trial for nearly a year.
5. Parishes need do nothing now; they have two years to adjust their bylaws.
   Parishes realigning risk being sued by The Episcopal Church and, likely, the reorganized diocese. Paying assessments to those currently in control of diocesan assets can certainly be taken as an indication that the parish intends to abscond with its property.
6. “In any case, we will make a strong case that we are the true Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
   I can make a strong case that I am Napoleon, but that doesn’t make it true.
7. The brochure announces a conference on the regular convention dates, November 7–8, but, in fact, this will essentially be a convention to re-elect the deposed Bishop Duncan. (See diocesan announcement here.)

All in all, this was something of a depressing day. Pittsburgh Episcopalians have much work and, alas, litigation ahead of them. The good news is that each side—they were called “realigners” and “reorganizers” today, rather than, say, “saints” and “apostates”—will, at some future time, feel unencumbered by the other.

I cannot say what will become of Robert Duncan’s dreams of glory. If they are realized, however, the Anglican Communion will, in essence, be destroyed.

Petty

It is a recognized phenomenon that people who have been abused (or think they have been abused) often visit abuse on others when they have the power to do so. Abused children often grow up to become abusive parents, for example. I was reminded of this two nights ago while attending a pre-convention briefing held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The self-styled “orthodox” are tireless in telling us that they are persecuted in The Episcopal Church. (They are much less diligent in explaining how they are persecuted, other than the fact that, since they are a pitifully small, though vocal, minority, they are not allowed to control the church, which they passionately want to do.) In large measure, our former bishop, Robert Duncan, has promoted “realignment” to escape the oppressive hand of the “evil” Episcopal Church, so that he and his “orthodox” colleagues can can govern a new church in a more godly manner.

It is too seldom reported how autocratic, manipulative, and just plain petty, “orthodox” rule can be, however. Bishop Duncan is certainly an offender, though not nearly so outrageous an offender as, for example, Bishops Schofield or Iker. Via Media USA attempted to document the indignities attendant rule by “orthodox” bishops in its 2005 report “In Our Many Voices,” but that report only scratches the surface.

On Monday, though, it was the pettiness we have seen in the Diocese of Pittsburgh that angered and saddened me. For years, Bishop Duncan has held diocesan events only at churches that have enthusiastically supported him and his schismatic objectives. It is a mild annoyance when such events are held at Ascension or St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, site of Monday’s gathering. These parishes have large facilities that can accommodate the hundreds of people who attend, say, a diocesan convention. True, a Calvary or a St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, could also host such a meeting comfortably, but one cannot really complain about the facilities offered by a St. Stephen’s.

Unfortunately, Saturday’s historic convention at which the diocese will vote on “realignment” is being held at St. Martin’s, Monroeville. St. Martin’s is probably best described as a medium-sized church of the diocese and one that has been unflagging in its support of Bishop Duncan. Because the diocese held a special convention there in 2003, however, I know how inadequate the church is for such a large event. This week’s convention will surely be a larger one, and holding it at St. Martin’s is perverse.

A good deal of time at Monday’s briefing was given over to explaining how deputies and visitors will be inconvenienced by the decision to use St. Martin’s. To begin with, since the worship space, where the convention will be held, is so small, only actual deputies and the press will be allowed in. Observers will be packed into the rather small parish hall. At the 2003 convention, observers had to listen to a low-fidelity audio feed. In 2008, we have been promised a video feed, though a similar arrangement at last year’s convention in Johnstown, held at the more commodious yet inadequate St. Mark’s, included virtually unintelligible audio.

At the briefing, it was explained that deputies have been given parking passes, though they were encouraged to carpool. Visitors, who cannot be accommodated in the small parking lot of St. Martin’s, are to park at a Lutheran church some distance away and to ride a shuttle being provided by the diocese. The diocese is selling box lunches to deputies—there is no food service within walking distance—but visitors cannot guarantee the availability of food other than by bringing their own.

St. Martin’s is just off the Parkway East. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has been rehabilitating this road recently and has been closing it partially on weekends. It is unclear whether the road will be closed this weekend, but, if it is, it will delay the arrival of many attendees, as it is the primary route to the church from Pittsburgh. This is a special problem, since registration for deputies closes promptly at 8:25 AM.

All of these problems attendant to conducting a convention at a “friendly” but inconvenient church have become routine in Pittsburgh. I lost it, however, when I was told that porta-potties had been ordered for the convention to serve the needs of the anticipated crowd.

True Episcopalians are willing to endure bad theology. I don’t understand why bad theology has to be accompanied by bad planning and bad toilets, however. Of course, maybe this is just to punish the Episcopalian “pagans” like me. The “orthodox” attendees can feel like they are suffering for the sake of the true gospel.

Gundersen Offers Pittsburgh Update

In the past few weeks, there has been a good deal of discussion about the situation in the Diocese of Pittsburgh on the House of Bishops and Deptuies e-mail list (HoB/D). At the end of the week, the diocese will vote in convention on “realignment,” on removing the diocese from The Episcopal Church (TEC) and moving it to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

This morning, in response to a nascent discussion of what TEC should do in Pittsburgh, Dr. Joan Gundersen offered list readers an update on the situation in the diocese,. (She had to ask someone to send her observations to the list, to which only bishops and General Convention deputies may post.) Joan is president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh and a member of the steering committee of Across the Aisle, the diverse coalition opposing “realignment” and planning the reorganization of the diocese that will be required if the vote for “realignment” passes.

I had been thinking an essay such as Joan’s was needed, and, as soon as I read her’s, I thought of making it more widely available, since the HoB/D has no public archive. When I offered to post Joan’s remarks, she readily agreed. It appears below with minor edits, mostly needed because the HoB/D is distributed in plain-text format.

I’m afraid that those of us in Pittsburgh have been focused on the planning we need to do to get through convention, and have not been keeping people informed about the status of things in Pittsburgh. Your response about what the TEC should do prodded me to give an update. You are welcome to share this with the whole HoB/D list.

1. Since his deposition, Bishop Duncan has been acting as a paid “consultant” to the current standing committee and has been received into the Southern Cone as a bishop; Bishop Henry Scriven also has a consulting contract, since his status as Assistant Bishop ended with Bishop Duncan’s deposition. Bishop Scriven leaves for a new position with SAMS at the end of the year. There will need be no negotiation with Bishop Duncan about leaving. He has already left, and should the realignment vote pass, is expecting to be invited back by the realigned group as bishop.
   
   
2. While most of the standing committee favors realignment, we are sure that at least one member is voting against it. We also have members of diocesan council and the board of trustees who are staying. This means that we will have an unbroken chain of governance to go forward as a diocese within TEC should the realignment vote pass. It will take a short time to confirm with each member of the various governing bodies whether they have realigned or remain Episcopalians, and then our remaining member(s) of standing committee will begin appointing people to essential vacant spots. We will be able to run our own reorganizing convention. Thanks to planning by the Across the Aisle group which has brought together everyone we can find who is staying (liberal, conservative, or in-between), plans for a continuing presence of TEC are well in hand. We will need to negotiate with the realigned group over access to office information and issues such as insurance. We are putting plans in place for everything from office space and web site to lay-reader training and the care and tending of parishes who are without clergy. It won’t be easy, and we are sure to be short of funds at first. However, passage of realignment is not a sure thing. There is a strong core of congregations and individuals committed to staying.
   
   
3. Should the realignment vote fail, we will have a bishopless diocese that is internally divided and in need of healing. We will also experience a rolling set of resignations as certain leaders and congregations individually withdraw. Should the vote pass, we will have an externally divided diocese and a number of deeply wounded parishes. Either way, we will need everyone’s prayers.
   
   
4. Those of us opposed to realignment have at every convention tried to have the chair rule that the amendments concerning the accession clause are out of order, and have at every convention reminded people of their fiduciary duties. We are prepared to do so again.
   
   
5. Because of the lawsuit filed in 2003 by Calvary Episcopal Church (and others), a signed stipulation on property resulted in 2005. The return to court by Calvary in 2006 resulted this fall in an appointment by the court of a special master who is inventorying diocesan property and reporting to the judge supervising the case. Thus, the status of property issues in Pittsburgh is very different from San Joaquin or Fort Worth. The 2005 stipulation signed by Bishop Duncan states that all diocesan (not parish) property belongs to the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A.” We believe that the meaning of this is clear and have every confidence that the judge will enforce this agreement. On the other hand, institutions such as Sheldon Calvary Camp will not turn away a child from a realigned group, and so the camp will, in that sense (but not in a governing sense), remain available to all in the region. The stipulation also includes a process for negotiating property settlements with parishes leaving TEC.
   
   
6. Our Cathedral parish has announced a plan where they would be neutral, serve the entire region, and participate in both the realigned and continuing dioceses. It is not clear whether this will be workable, but they are certainly going to give it a good try.

The best thing TEC can do for Pittsburgh should the realignment measures pass at convention is to recognize and support those who are going to ensure a continuing presence of TEC in this part of Pennsylvania.

I feel compelled to add two comments of my own for which Joan is not responsible and with which she might disagree. Item 2 in the stipulation reached in the Calvary lawsuit sets out a procedure for negotiating property issues whenever a parish “shall elect to disaffiliate with the Diocese.” It is not clear how this procedure might work in practice. Moreover, since TEC is not a formal party to the stipulation, it is unclear whether it might not find it necessary to intervene in the process described therein.

Second, I am very skeptical of Trinity Cathedral’s a-blessing-on-both-your-houses response to “realignment.” How can The Episcopal Church, which has always objected strenuously to diocesan-border crossing by bishops, possibly countenance a parish that claims to be in two dioceses in two provinces subject to two mutually antagonistic bishops?

Done

Across the Aisle has issued a press release announcing that Bishop Duncan has been formally deposed by the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. The AtA site also includes a personal letter to Bishop Duncan from the Presiding Bishop and the formal deposition.

Mea culpa: My remark about spelling on my original post was the product of making a quick posting and misreading an address. Well, there are days like that.

On Pride and Priests

Regular readers of my blog know that I typically offer my own opinions, rather than directing readers to consider the essays of others. When I arrived at church yesterday, however, several friends asked me if I had seen the op-ed piece on The Episcopal Church in the “Forum” section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I hadn’t, but reading it was the first thing I did when I got home. It was worth waiting for. The essay is called “On pride and priests.” The author is Calvary Church parishioner Conroy D. Guyer. (“On pride and priests” can be read on the Web site of the Post-Gazette here, but I have also reproduced it below.)

I was struck by two aspects of the Guyer piece. First, all the talk about how tragic was the September 18 vote to depose Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, was becoming tiresome. Yes, it was unfortunate that such an action was necessary, but removing this particular rogue bishop should have been done years ago, and the real tragedy is that it was not. Alas, even now, we cannot say, “My fellow Episcopalians, our long ecclesiastical nightmare is over.” Duncan has fled jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church for that of the Southern Cone, is still collecting a salary, is expecting to be returned as a bishop of Pittsburgh after the convention vote on “realignment,” and has even created a blog where angry Anglican leaders can express what a falsly maligned saint he is! Guyer, who clearly has a different view of Bob Duncan, has the courage and good sense to spare us the crocodile tears.

Second, Guyer articulates the moral case against the Duncan program. Usually, it has been Duncan’s allies—the American Anglican Councils and the Global South Primates of the Anglican world—who have claimed the moral high ground, arguing that their agenda is God’s agenda, and therefore not subject to the usual restraints on ethical behavior. Guyer suggests that the “realignment” movement is a product of spiritual pride and a quest for power and money. Guyer calls on the upcoming convention to reject such a program.

I do not expect “On pride and priests” to stop the “realignment” juggernaut, but it is high time that someone attacked “realignment” on its home turf. Read the essay. You likely will not agree with everything Guyer says, but he surely offers substantial food for thought.

On pride and priests

Pittsburgh Episcopalians who vote to secede from the national church will likely regret it, argues communicant CONROY D. GUYER

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will vote Oct. 4 on whether to secede from the Episcopal Church—the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion—and realign with a more theologically conservative Anglican province in South America. Robert Duncan, the bishop of the Pittsburgh diocese until he was removed Thursday by the Episcopal House of Bishops, has led this movement, both in Pittsburgh and nationally.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, believed that the desire for power is the central motivation of the human personality. Later this month, the T.S. Eliot play, “Murder in the Cathedral,” will be performed at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Downtown Pittsburgh.

It should be a cautionary tale for the laity and the clergy who will soon vote about whether the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh should remain in the Episcopal Church.

“Murder in the Cathedral” is a play about a 12th century archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, who has his own agenda. Becket’s quest for power takes the form of spiritual pride, which becomes his tragic flaw. This tragic flaw is objectified in Becket’s fantasies of martyrdom, with its concomitant desire for power. When the Tempter comes to Becket, the Tempter speaks Becket’s own thoughts to him

… But think, Thomas … of glory after death

… Think of pilgrims, standing in line

Before the glittering jeweled shrine …

And think of your enemies in another place

Power in the form of moral purity does not exist anywhere in this world. There are always the subtexts, the unarticulated desires, the tacit motivations.

While the hidden agenda may remain unclear, one does have an understanding about how an administrator should exercise his power in office. Should an administrator exercise his power in the best interests of his institution, or undermine it? If an administrator feels that an institution no longer reflects his values, should he not resign from it? Does an administrator in the office of a bishop have the right to take a diocese out of its parent organization and give its assets of $43 million to another diocese—maybe one of his own devising or perhaps one on another continent?

(No wonder Mr. Duncan calls ours a diocese of miraculous expectation! Where is the missionary grace? A slogan can cover a vacuum.)

When power is misused, it taints the hopes of those who are no longer with us and who have given money so that the structures and the doctrines of the Episcopal church will be here for future generations. The purpose for which these people have given money is thwarted and their trust is broken. Is this not a genuine ethical problem? Furthermore, are not the higher ethical values of religion sadly compromised in schism? Who has ever read a book about a church schism and concluded that this was the shining hour of faith?

Then too one does question bishops and priests who try to gain power among their flocks like demagogues by promulgating simple, single-issue concepts like their objection to the ordination of women or their disapproval of homosexual practices. What gender can give more compassion to ministry than womankind? Do homosexual desires disappear when they are confronted by the screeds of a preacher or a bishop in a medieval hat? Do these same clergy preach so ardently against the turpitudes of heterosexuals?

An intelligent church needs clergy who display the same understanding of the human mind—its desires and its mechanisms—as a psychotherapist. Science has done more than religion to liberate moderns from the superstitions of the past. Science has given us understanding through description. Intelligent religion can give additional meaning to that description.

Additionally, Jesus himself never spoke about the subject of homosexuality as far as we know. Many clergy have said more about homosexuality in Jesus’ name than Jesus himself ever did.

A third point that needs remembering is that the new diocese will not be a utopia—a place of absolute moral purity. It will be administered by people who, like Archbishop Becket, “follow too much the devices and the desires of their own hearts.” Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “The tragedy of man is that he can conceive self-perfection, but he cannot achieve it.”

Sadly, many lunatic acts have been committed by religious people in history—acts that many sincere people lived to regret. Do we learn from history? How quickly the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England lost its purity, and some in New England who supported the witch trials later came to regret their participation in them.

An antidote to mad acts is clarity of thought. One might find a way toward lucid thought if one applies the formula of the English poet, William Wordsworth, to his decision-making process. Wordsworth felt that the genesis of a good poem began in an intense emotional experience, which Wordsworth described as “the spontaneous overflow of emotions.” If that intense emotional experience is to find expression in the well-ordered world of art, the poet then must engage in quiet reflection. Wordsworth called this part of the artistic process, “… the recollection in tranquility.”

The clergy and the laity of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh are going to make a momentous decision soon that will affect all of us in a good or a bad way for decades to come. Power will be exercised in the process, with its far-reaching effects. The desire for power for some is a subtext in this drama. Some players in this drama will be looking for rewards more palpable than spiritual.

The body of Christ will be torn. The promise of purity will be corrupted by time, as it casts its shadows. Decisions made in the heat of emotions devoid of reason will lead to madness, and madness leads to regret.

My hope is that the laity and the clergy of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Episcopal Church will exercise their faculty of “reflection in tranquility” in the days to come.

Conroy D. Guyer is retired from the English faculty at Fox Chapel Area High School and is a communicant of Calvary Episcopal Church in East Liberty. He lives in Greensburg.

Across the Aisle Web Site

Across the Aisle, the group of clergy and laypeople in the Diocese of Pittsburgh opposed to “realignment,” has, for many months, been flying under the radar. Its existence has only become widely known through the public event it sponsored last Saturday. (See “Across the Aisle Sponsors Unity Event.”)

“A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternate Solution” required that a few documents be posted on the Web, and the growing collection of pages was increasingly looking like a Web site, albeit a rudimentary one. Today, I decided to add a little navigation to tie everything together.

It may now be said that there is an actual Across the Aisle Web site. The material on the site is mostly about “A Hopeful Future,” but it includes a contact address and may eventually broaden its scope. In all likelihood, there will be no need for Across the Aisle or its Web site after October 4, when much of the Diocese of Pittsburgh departs for the Southern Cone, leaving the continuing Episcopalians to pick up the pieces and carry on the work of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in The Episcopal Church. (Of course, this is not how Bishop Duncan describes “realignment,” but my description is based on an understanding of this universe.)

Across the Aisle Web can now be found on the Web at http://ata.episcopalunity.org. Be sure to see the photos from last week. There really were more than 300 people in St. Paul’s undercroft! The site also includes links to news stories that mention Across the Aisle.

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.