Open Letter: To the People and Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh

RE: “A bishop’s decision to change Anglican jurisdictions would not,if I am reading the Archbishop correctly (and I believe the ACI holds to this reading as well) change a given parish’ relationship to Canterbury. There is no need to break away from the diocese to maintain communion with Canterbury unless the diocese itself formally renounced its communion ties…which Pittsburgh has not done.”

Well, if Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth is revoked—which I expect—than obviously the ABC’s letter was contingent on the dioceses/bishops remaining in TEC.

For whatever reason, these clergy have decided to go public with their lack of support for the planned departure of the diocese from TEC.  Though I know many of them personally and would hesitate to call them collaborators, I greatly regret their decision and earnestly pray that they will reconsider.  I think that they are fooling themselves if they believe they can co-exist for long with the liberal leadership of TEC who care nothing whatsoever about the Windsor Report.  Once the rest of us are gone and there is a new bishop in town their lives will change dramatically from the safety they have known under +Duncan.

I posted the following at TitusOneNine as well:

Honestly, is anyone really surprised by this? I do not know of any dioceses that are monochrome theologically. According to the diocesan website, there are 74 parishes in the Diocese.

In the Diocese of Pittsburgh, there is at least one parish that wishes to leave now. There are several that are not theologically conservative that wish to have their bishop removed, fired, deposed or possibly even hurled by catapult.

I just hope that Bishop Duncan and the assorted dissidents of every stripe have learned from what happened in San Joaquin and can find a way through this that best reflects God’s grace and mercy.

As a way forward, I notice that there are at least two members of the Standing Committee who are likely not in favour of leaving the Episcopal Church, the Rev. James Simons and Vera Quinn. Assuming that is accurate, then the Diocese could take the second vote at it next annual convention.

Again assuming it passes, the members of the Standing Committee who are against leaving could put their votes on record, withdraw to a separate location and reform a rump Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, holding a separate convention at their new location.

In that way continuity would be preserved and no power vacuum could exist.

I do not know if it would be practical, but I think it might be a starting point.

I get breezy here

What is interesting about this letter is that it is inconsistent with what the Archbishop of Canterbury stated in his letter to Bishop Howe and reiterated in his Advent letter, namely that parishes are connected or in communion with his see not via the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church

How so? These people say they want to remain within the Episcopal church, not simply that they remain in communion with Canterbury or part of the Anglican communion. They may perfectly well agree that if their current bishop decides to realign out of TEC they could join him and still remain in communion with Canterbury. But they could hardly do so and yet remain part of TEC which is what their letter says.

Matt, you can hang your hopes on +RDW’s letter to +Howe, but the tenor of that letter is inconsistent with the fooling around that ACO is doing on the AC website with +Schofield.

The real power struggle is not inside Pittsburgh, but inside Lambeth, as Kenneth Kearon attempts more and more to speak for the Anglican Communion. But you’ll never see that split go public: that would not be very British, don’t you know.

from the rabbit hole,

I have one simple word for this; foolish! If this people succeed in breaking away from Bishop Duncan ,they will surely regret it. It is beyond foolish for such people to imagine that there is any future in the General Convention Church, I guarantee the full persecutory force of the reappraisers will be unleashed upon any moderates and reasserters dumb enough to linger around. Mark my words, General Conevention 2009 will be a final slaughter of the reasserters and the Windsor types foolish enough to still be around.Some kind of mandatory same sex blessing/ordination canon or something will be rammed though. The battle inside is lost, get the hell out while there is still time and you have a relatively good position to get out. These people are so foolish and I’ll say it cowardly. Toss TEC as the the broken, irredeemable trash it is. There will be a new Anglican Provence after much hell, and these people I guess will need to taste more it for waking up. Wolves get a whole bunch of elk to start running and then zero in on the weaklings and final isolate one elk away from the rest and kill it. Foolish reasserters and their churches will be suffer the same fate as the elk. Sheep that get seperated and wander from their sheppard get eaten.

From what I know of their argument, that is exactly it… they want to remain in TEC.  Most of them are establishment men (I’m sure Nano will forgive me for not using “inclusive” language).  They’re good priests, good Christians, and lovely people; but they see themselves as being loyal to TEC come what may.  Sometimes it’s godly.  They want to work from within.  They have not abandoned the Gospel. 

Sometimes, however, it’s not godly.  They may be afraid.  They have endowments and buildings to protect.  Or perhaps they just can’t see a radically different future.  Almost all of them are pretty long tenured, entrenched.

I love these people.  I know them, some of them well.  Up until three weeks ago, I called one of them my rector.  I still call him my good friend.  This is probably the most agonizing moment yet for me; to see how visibly we now stand against one another.

Anglo Catholic Jihadi;
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Love the handle too.Forgive me while I speculate for a moment. These and others that are like minded do not understand a couple of simple scenarios. First, when the Dennis Cannon starts being used to force fence sitters, or should I say “Windsor Bishops”, to celebrate same sex blessings and accept openly gay priests, and it will, what will you do then? What will you do when your diocese cannot get enough consents for your next bishop becasue he is not liberal enough?
It will be too late then. Duncan, Iker, Schofield, and my bishop, Ackerman, have nothing to gain in this life by seperating from TEC but pain. They are doing it knowing full well that the two truthes I mentioned above are not to far off in the future. It bothers me that these fine shepherds have not played up this angle enough.
TEC and Orthodox Anglicanism are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist together. Anyone who says they can stay in TEC and believe in the faith once delivered is not only being naive, but being irresponsible. Did I mention cowardly? Oh yeah, Anglo Catholic Jihadi already did. Stand up for what you believe in! In the name of Christ!

Crusader44

Yes Sarah, I agree, that would settle the matter

Bre-er, I am not “hanging my hopes” on anything, especially not the word of the ABC. I was simply going on what we know at this point with the letter to Howe, the Advent letter, and the invitations remaining in place

In reading this I find myself going back to 2 Cor.11:20-21,hard for me to fathom ongoing loyalty to a denominational culture(can’t call it a church)that sues its members,that condones aberational theology and lifestyle,uses inhibition and deposition selectively.

From the Post-Gazette:

“The bishop has made a mistake,” said Father Quinn, with 25 years of service the longest-tenured priest in the diocese. “He seems to be going in a different direction than we are.”

and

Father Geisler’s 123-year-old church has an endowment of more than $500,000; balance that, he said, against spending it all in a single year on legal fees.

“We are unified [with Bishop Duncan] on a vision,” said Father Geisler, president of the diocese’s clergy association. “We are not unified on a tactic.”

I also expect Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth to be revoked.  The ABC stated that he was going to take into account (ie., wait for or follow?) the ECUSA House of Bishops’ decision on this.

Re #2:

Once the rest of us are gone and there is a new bishop in town their lives will change dramatically from the safety they have known under +Duncan.

I don’t think they will have to wait for a new bishop.  Look what has happened to the members of the San Joaquin Standing Committee members who were only “in discernment” about going to Southern Cone!

I believe that Sarah is right…. +Cantuar’s letter to +Howe was based on the assumption as well-stated by +Howe that he intended to stay in TEC.  From my reading of things, +Calvalcanti, +Kunonga, +Howe (am waiting on another that seems unclear as to where he stands with his provinces as he may have repented his actions), +Cantuar looks to the province to determine whether or not a bishop has jurisdiction.  I can not imagine another way as, as is likely in the San Joaquin, there will be two bishops contending that they have jurisdiction in a specific area.  Even if a the extra-curricular activities of a primate seem to indicate that he/she has such authority, without the agreement and participation in a plan for such by the church whose geography is being compromised, their actions are most likely to be considered null and void and their irregular appointees pretenders: +Minns, +Anderson, +Atwood, +Guernsey, etc.  +Venables does not have jurisdiction in the US.  +Akinola does not have jurisdiction nor do any of those who, acting on their own right in interpreted the situation in the US to be an “emergency” and their presence in it at the “invitation” of the injured party.  What Dar-es Salaam affirmed was not that those who intruded into the US were right, but that they believed they were right.  This was was not Windsor or even close to it….  Dromantine and Nottingham not withstanding

“I don’t think it’s good stewardship to use that money for legal fees,” he [The Rev. James Simons, rector of St. Michael’s of the Valley in Ligonier] said.

KJS wins the fear-war.  It is not a matter of conscience any more - very, very sad.

John316 - your link broke - here - this should work.

Ah, isn’t the wonderful way forward advocated by Griswold et alia and now rending the ECUSA/TEC and the Anglican Communion asunder proving its value by its fruits?  The Gamaliel test has been given tand the results are patently obvious.  Yes, indeedy, VGR’s brought peace, joy, reconciliation, and love to all just as predicted.  All that furor was going to die down in 6 months.  And it has.  For those who have died in the interim 4+ years.  The GCC marches onward and downward.

There is more going on here that what you are reading in this letter or in the Post Gazette article.  If it is merely a difference of opinion over tactics and not vision as Jay Geisler claims that why not write a private letter to the bishop or simply express your differences face to face in a private meeting?  Why go on record publically in opposition to all the other othodox clergy of the diocese and the bishop unless there is another reason.  As Jesus said, He who is not for me, is against me”.

I find this fascinating! I said to many before our Convention that we, the Dio. of San Joaquin, were going to be the “sacrificial offering” for those other dioceses such as Pittsburg, Ft. Worth, and Quincy. In as much as when we finally make our move first they will be waiting and watching to see just how it all pans out before they will decide. At that time before the Convention I satated to quite a fe that I don’t think that they will go once they see the heavy hand of TEC come hammering down upon us.
It’s kinda like “You go into the dark cave first and if you make it back out in one piece then we will follow after you.”

Fear is a brick wall between me and Christ! I for one would not want to build on that brick wall.

Does anyone know where Quincy is is the process of leaving TEC, and if they have a chance of ratifying any necessary consitutional changes before GC2009?

I think that we all know what is correct…the wall that we face is how to do it correctly…

Re: #19: As someone outside DioQuincy, I cannot answer the first question.

As someone familiar with some parts of DioQuincy’s Constitution, I am confident that the answer to the second question is “yes.”

Of course, when the split occurs this remnant will be left with a revisionist Bishop, in a Diocese now dominated by revisionists.  I guess there is always retirement.

Going Home, your comment leads to an interesting question…how many of the signatories of this letter are with 10 or 15 years of retirement?  There are two groups of clergy who would seem to be least influenced by pension fund considerations:  those are are already fully vested (and therefore are completely free of any such considerations) and those who are so young that getting any substantial pension benefits is such are forlorn hope as not to be a factor in their decision-making. In the middle, you have a group of middle-aged clergy who have the prospects of getting the admittedly very generous benefits of the pension fund, and may deceive themselves, for the sake of their prospective benefits, into thinking that they can gut it out, keep their heads down, and put in the time needed to completely their vesting, even if this means serving under liberal bishops.

I don’t know that the above describes any of the clergy who signed this letter, and I apologize to all clergy who may be offended at the suggestion that crass considerations of mammon might influence ecclesial affiliation.  I have been told that the Episcopal Church is two churches united by a common pension fund.

I know of a former TEC priest, now an offshore bishop, who was within two years of being fully vested in the pension fund when he transferred to a non-TEC Anglican province. Would the re-alignment look different if all clergy were willing to make that kind of sacrifice?

Well, if Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth is revoked—which I expect—than obviously the ABC’s letter was contingent on the dioceses/bishops remaining in YEC.

He should have specified that if only to make TEC happy.  This is one time when I hope you are wrong, Sarah. 

Crusader, you are right about GC 2009,  The HOB made it crystal clear in NO what lies in the future.  There is no place in TEC for the orthodox.  The likes of Iker, Duncan, Schofield, and Ackerman will never be installed again.  +Lawrence had to promise not to leave TEC to be approved.  An orthodox diocese will never be able to have an orthodox candidate approved again.

I think we need to be aware of the level of fear that the clergy may be feeling—not just about their own status and material well-being but about their congregation’s well-being. Pittsburgh as a diocese hasn’t shown much growth over the last say 5 years—I make it something like ASA of 8,200 in 2001 and only 8000 in 2006, and with one notable exception, all of these people are presiding over congregations that have either shown no-growth (in 4 cases)—or a significant decline (in 4 cases), so that while the the diocese shrank by about 2.5% these congregations shrank by 5.3%. The details (and as I was reading off the graphs the numbers are by necessity rounded are): (2001 ASA; 2006 ASA)

• St. Stephen’s, Wilkinsburg (90;60)
• St. Stephen’s, McKeesport (170;120)
• The Rev. Daniel Hall, priest associate, assigned to First Lutheran Church (not within the TEC network)
• The Rev. Norman Koehler, priest, chaplain at Presbyterian Senior Care, Oakmont (not within the TEC network)
• The Rev. Jeffrey Murph, rector of St. Thomas’, Oakmont
• Church of the Nativity, Crafton (80;80)
• St. Andrews’, Highland Park (110;105 - I am not 100% sure I had the right church but assumed that Highland Park was in Pittsburgh itself)
• Christ Church, North Hills (220; 300—this church had a very interesting graph 300 was in fact the norm throughout most of the period but 2001 and 2002 were for some reason much lower—so this one example of significant growth may have more behind it)
• St. Michael’s of the Valley, Ligonier (190;185)
• St. Barnabas’, Brackenridge (120;95)
• St. Peter’s, Brentwood (120; 105)
• Emmanuel, North Side. (82; 60)

It must be very hard to watch a small church slowly dying before your eyes, with a risky future in the offering.

Actually, Margaret, for reasons I’d rather not discuss in front of God and everyone (so to speak) and having so recently been at Nativity, I think the conclusions you’ve drawn from the numbers, at least there, are very uncharitable and unbalanced.  If you only knew half the history of that parish during the tenure of the current rector…

Fear, yes.  Slowly dwindling parish.  No.

Also keep in mind that while Pittsburgh as a diocese doesn’t show much numerical growth, Pittsburgh as a city has lost massive numbers of people.  So while the diocese may not be growing, in relation to the population it is gaining ground.

AndrewA,
I am a member of the Doicessan Council in Quincy. We are having our second reading in November 2008 to coincide with Ft. Worth and Pittsburgh. It is an effort by all three to hit 815 all at once and thus produce an overwhelming effect.
One Day Closer, you are way off base. You should wait until you have all your facts before you spout off. This was a timing issue as to why San Joaquin left first. Nothing more nothing less.

#27 Crusader44
I pray that you are right and thus I take my correction from you happily! But, please understand that some of us here in SJ, when we see this kind of open letter, it has given us an abrupt stop to take notice. Especially after the wonderful & inspiriational speach your Bishop gave to us at our Convention
All are in our prayers.
ODC

Bishop Duncan is a bit nervous about the outcome of the vote to realign.  At a recent meeting he said that the vote on the first reading was 9 to 1 pro in the clergy but 2 to 1 in the lay order.  He said it would not take too many votes to lose in the lay order.  So there is a battle in Pittsburgh and these priests are weighing in.  A vote for realignment is not certain.  When asked what he would tell a delegate who was thinking of staying, he said tell them he will not remain in TEC and about half the priests of the diocese would also resign if the convention votes no.  He said life would be a complete mess for those who stay after he and many clergy bolt. 
He said the genius of Anglicism was born out of the Elizabethethan Settlement compromise btw Protestant and Catholic. 
Then he said its not right to compromise on homosexulaity.  Then he said it was right for pro women’s ordination and anti women’s ordination to compromise in the new realigned american province.  The 39 articles prohibit the lifting up and gazing upon the host.  Bishop Duncan held up and gazed upon the host when he celebrates the Eucharist.  this is no small question of style as there are worlds of theology and history behind this prohibition.  Bishop Duncan has allowed liberals to become priests and serve in his diocese.  So sometimes compromise on important theological issues is good for him sometimes bad.

#29, lets be a bit charitable. 

“He said the genius of Anglicism was born out of the Elizabethethan Settlement compromise btw Protestant and Catholic”

The gist of the Elizabethan compromise was essentially “We really aren’t interested in policing your thoughts, we just ask that all communicants agree to behave and worship in a commonly acceptable manner” (yes, I know it’s oversimplified).  If we all agreed to this approach, there’d be a lot less trouble.  I suspect that +Duncan could care less if a priest in his diocese is a celibate homosexual as long as he behaves in an orthodox fashion. I also applaud +Duncan for entertaining the debate about WO in light of substantial scriptural support for a hard line against it.  There are staunch advocates for each side and the Bishop seems to be doing his best to facilitate the discussion without asking anyone to jump in feet first at the potential expense of his salvation.  Relative to your last point:

“The 39 articles prohibit the lifting up and gazing upon the host.  Bishop Duncan held up and gazed upon the host when he celebrates the Eucharist.  this is no small question of style as there are worlds of theology and history behind this prohibition.”

I can only assume you are referring to Article 28:

Article XXVIII: Of the Lord’s Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

This means that we as a church don’t necessarily buy into the ACTUAL TRANSFOMATION of the bread and wine into THE REAL BODY and THE REAL BLOOD of Jesus.  If we regarded this as more than “unknowable” (thanks again, QE1) we’d do as the RCC does and actually treat the transformed host as Jesus (again, GROSS oversimplification).  But I really don’t think that anyone has a problem with holding up the bread and wine and gazing at it…

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I greet you in the name of our most sovereign and glorious Lord Jesus Christ and I pray that His grace and peace would be with you. I am writing out a profound sense of sadness and concern for the open letter, which you so recently published (DATE). I am known to some of you personally and several of you I have counted as friends and even in one case a mentor. I was deeply troubled by both your decision and your missive. I ask you in all humility to please sincerely and prayerfully consider what I put before you and ask that you please reconsider your decision not only for your own sakes but also for those under your spiritual charge.

I write to you as a friend in the Lord and under no illusion that I have all the answers or in this specific case, any specific word of knowledge. Nor do I write believing that any of you are anything other than people who are truly sincere in their convictions. I simply write to you because my spirit was deeply grieved by what I read. I must say in fairness to you that I myself was a priest in the Episcopal Church but due to the theological environment of my former diocese and the intransigence of my former Bishop my congregation and I left and we’re blessedly received in the Diocese of Argentina, in the Province of the Southern Cone. This past Advent we celebrated our first anniversary as an Anglican Church plant in San Diego. I share these things with you not in a presumptive way, but in a spirit of kinship. Our congregation understands the pain and the anguish required to prayerfully discern both one’s relationship to the Episcopal Church and God’s unique call to us in these uncertain times. 

I have decided to write to you in the format that you yourselves have elected an open letter. It is not intended as a personal attack or affront but rather a collegial concern. I do not expect nor require response but would gladly dialogue with you any or all of you if it were so desired. Thus, I would again ask you to please pray about the following things and if you so desire contact me in person to discuss my thoughts.

1.  I urge you to consider the cost of staying in what one can only describe as a theologically toxic relationship, not only for you undersigned (that is the authoring clergy) but more importantly the souls of the faithful in your care. It is one thing for you to feel a need to be on the frontline but quite another to place one’s sheep needlessly before wolves.  Have you truly counted the cost to your flock not only of leaving but also and perhaps, more significantly of staying? What are the risks of leaving as compared to the significant danger to staying within TEC?

2.  It seems to smack a bit of hubris to think you can witness or hope to effectively do so when so many before you have faithfully done the same for nearly forty years to no avail. Likewise, it seems as if all those of us who have left have variously made attempts to renew and change TEC from within, again to no avail. It seems to me if they are clear, and I believe they are, that they do not wish to change course then perhaps we need to respect their decision and quit trying to woo them away from something so plainly believe is right. To continue to dog them, TEC’s progressives, with calls to reform and renewal from within seems to me have now moved into a distressing form of institutional codependence. They do not wish to change and we conservatives should respect their decision and release them into it with our prayers. Even Jesus, told his disciples there would be times they were to shake off the dust and move on (c.f. Matthew 10:14).

3.  Many in my mind, including Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh, whom I also know, have clearly attempted to fulfill the injunctions to seek reconciliation Jesus outlined in Matthew 18:15-18. Jesus clearly points for the sad necessity for separation if repentance is not forthcoming. How then do you justify remaining when you God given Bishop and others have fulfilled such moral and theological imperatives and yet have not met with change of course or conduct?

4.  Since you have invoked the public with your letter, informing them of your decision, I for one feel that as clergy and leaders you need to provide a clear and biblical rationale for your decision. Your citation of Ephesians 6:6, does not adequately address my concern here; if for no other reason there is nothing in the inherent in that verse or its immediate context to suggest you must remain within a specific human denomination in order to intercede for the Saints. By the way you may wish to review your choice of citations which actually reads:

“6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.” (NIV)

One might argue that verse in fact might prompt you to stay under the authority of your present Bishop rather than to bolt.

Additionally, in is incumbent upon you as leaders not only to give biblical and theological rationale for your staying but also to finish that logical equation and offer said reasons for why leaving is NOT truly an appropriate response.  This is something you owe yourselves, your congregations and the universal church collectively.

5.  My final concern is simply this why would you buck the wisdom of your Bishop, Bob Duncan, the other Clergy and laity of your diocese, not to mention that of countless of other saints from around the USA, who have left and stay? This I especially true when you consider the number of outside primates and authorities who recognize the validity of Bishop Duncan’s position and in fact support him in it. Why would you willing refuse the anointed and godly leadership of Bishop Duncan who is committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for an institution whose motives no matter how they are couched in the language of inclusively and justice are at best dubious in and of themselves, and at worst, antithetical to historic creedal Christian belief?

I pray you will consider my words and pray for the wisdom of God as you move ahead. Likewise, I bear you no ill will and in fact greatly respect those of you whom I know personally but I honestly believe that your are greatly mistaken in this case and ask you both for your own sake and those of your flocks to reconsider your choice. May the Lord Jesus grant you all wisdom and peace as you move forward in His service.

In Grace & Peace,

Russell+

The Rev. Russell E. J. Martin, MSW/MDiv,
Rector of Anglican Church of Sts. Timothy & Titus, San Diego
http://www.st-tnt.org

#31   Wow.

This comment is a classic. If you have some wobbly Windsorites in your parish or diocese, send it to them.

One Day Closer I wish we could trade locations. We will be standing besides you come November.  I pray for all of you brave people daily. We couldn’t be joining you soon enough. The Episcopal shield which was a badge of honor to me and others is now a mark of shame. the sooner it’s off our sign the better.

Crusader44

Thanks Crusader44,
I will keep you and all in my daily prayers and devotional. Having “Anglican” on our sign with our diocesan sheild is a wonderful sight to see.

Fr. Russell Martin,
I drew much courage and warmth from your letter in your post #31 above. Beautiful, heartfelt, encourging, thoughtful and in Christian love was your missive to them. I will pray over it that those that read it will hear it and be moved.

I have no idea where morningsideanglican received his/her information about Bishop Duncan’s words to the clergy of the diocese on January 17. The citation of statistics was relatively accurate - as for the rest, the most charitable description would be relatively inaccurate.