Friday, November 02, 2007

On Pittsburgh

Episcopal Café has posted a fine summary of the decisions facing the Diocese of Pittsburgh, whose convention begins today, including this:
The Convention will vote on the first reading of constitutional changes that would attempt to separate the Diocese from the Episcopal Church, becoming its own free-standing entity, allow the Diocese to pick the Primate of their choice from around the Anglican Communion, and welcome into membership congregations that are not within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
They also have this poignant snippet from the JohnstownTribune-Democrat:
“It is like my parents are getting divorced,” said Cindy Leap, parishioner at St. Mark’s Episcopalian [sic] Church in Johnstown. “I have to pick whether to go with my mommy or daddy.”
Pray for the Church.


Blogger Mark said...

These moves are clearly un-Anglican and un-American. How can a whole diocese say, "I have no need of you" to the larger church? This un-precedented; to move their diocese from the Episcopal Church and to the purview (sp?) of another Anglican (or so-called Anglican) body.

Democrats didn't demand creation of another country when George Bush took us to war (although it was talked about). Republicans didn't secede when Democrats regained control of the Congress. Why can't we stick it out-argue-share ideas-come to compromise?

I'm so disappointed.

11/02/2007 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the first post, we might point out that, um, the USA did break away from England in the name of principle and truth. So, too, with Pittsburgh, except, in fairness, they are, to speak more accurately, realigning. Additionally, those on the left side cannot lodge the complaint that what Pgh is doing is, as the post above says, 'unprecendented' because the left has, at the center of their justification for new sexual ethics and a new understanding of the kind of behavior and social structure(s) the church should promote, the principle that 'God is doing a new thing.' With this principle justifying so much that the leadership of ECUSA has done it cannot in fairness be lobbed as a grenade against Pgh.

Polemics, if the above is a polemic (tho' I didn't intend it to be) aside, another way of looking at this is to say that we are seeing a split that, given all that history has been till now, has to happen. And has to happen because, as is truly clear, if Pgh were to stay in ECUSA as soon as Duncan retired, there would be little or no chance of getting the standing committees across the church to consent to a bishop who upheld the traditional teaching on marriage. Evidence for this is seen in the Mark Lawrence debacle: the initial denying of consents and just recently the very slim margin by which he passed. Second, more ominously, is the recent declaration of the Executive Council making it clear that from now on it will be required practice for diocese to support the agenda of SSU's, SSB's, and more bishops living in them.

So, who has no need of whom? Further, when we in ECUSA were told not to proceed with Robinson's ordination b/c it would 'tear the sacramental unity of the church at a fundamental level' who said, in effect, we have no need of you? And when the Primates said to repent, turn around, or even slow down, and we did not, who, then, said 'we have no need of you'?

Pgh should be allowed to leave via a mediated settlement the way Christ Church in Kansas City was allowed to leave. All it takes is goodwill--a willlingness to be fair and honest about who really built the diocese. KJS has not shown herself, as I see things, to be worthy of trust nor especially diplomatic. Most recently, she accuses conservatives of not wanting to ever baptize gay people and she says her threatening letter to Duncan was an offer of reconciliation. Mind boggling. And devious. So I pray for Pittsburgh.

11/03/2007 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There sure is a differance between Pittsburgh and the city of Seattle where I live. In Seattle, the deacon of the Cathedral is gay. One would think that in an urban area like Pittsburgh that they would be the least likely in Pennsylvania to be conservitive. Are there no gay members in the cathedral in Pittsburgh? Is there no Integrity chapeter in Pittsburgh?

11/04/2007 4:30 AM  
Blogger PseudoPiskie said...

Pittsburgh is an overgrown small town, still divided in large part into ethnic neighborhoods. Pittsburgh is also home to Dick Scaife, one of the principal backers of the IRD. There is far more money behind schism than could ever be raised by Integrity and/or other inclusive organizations.

11/04/2007 1:23 PM  
Blogger Mike Greiner said...

You tell 'em Piskie! Pittsburgh is backward and provincial. Too bad they're not ahead of the curve like Seattle. What do those backwards Pennsylvanians know?

Well, one thing they can tell the difference between is "big" and "little." They desire to align with Anglicans --the "big" group. Seattle is deciding to align with the "little" group.

Sorry white Westerners, but God has chosen the least of this world to shame the wise. Let's hear it for the life of Anglicanism in Africa and Asia! Fresh wind, fresh fire, fresh life to a dying congregation.

12/04/2007 7:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home