Luminous Darkness

Some interesting news out of Botswana today. Apparently there was an article stating that the diocese had passed a vote of no confidence in their bishop, but a letter from the Diocesan Secretary states that this is in fact not true. Although the discussion of another bishop holding meetings within Botswana without consent is of concern from an ecclesiological point of view, to me the more interesting quote backs of what I have believed about many Anglicans in Africa for some time:

…the Bishop still stands by his position that Africa has too many problems (poverty, HIV and AIDS, poor governance, unemployment, etc) to sort out than to spend a lot of time and energy on homosexuality issues, which do not impact on the day-to-day lives of many struggling African people.

I have heard this point of view expressed by others I have met at international events in the past, and I feel strongly that it relates pretty closely to my own views on the issue as well.

Thanks to Jeremy Bonner, I have learned that the convention actually needed to pass Resolution 1 by a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. So, in fact, the whole process passed by only one (lay) vote! Fascinating to think that it was actually that close. I have been able to correct this entry.  In fact, a simple majority is all that is necessary in the canons of the diocese, as he points out in his amended article.  His whole article is actually quite a good summary of what went on at the meetings today.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh voted just now to leave the Episcopal Church, not in so many words, but that is the spirit of Resolution 1 at the Diocesan Convention. The Resolution says several things, but the most important points are that the Diocese of Pittsburgh is free to choose its own Provincial alignment by canon and that it may contain parishes outside its historical geographic boundaries. The majority was not staggering, but in the lay order was approximately 66% in favor and 33% against and in the clerical order, 82% in favor and 18% against. The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, bishop, in his address to the convention said the following to ‘moderates’, those who have not made up their mind as to which side of the debate they are on:

To the still undecided or “torn” deputies in this Annual Convention I would offer one thought. The matter finally comes down to an unavoidable choice between cultures. There is the culture of the wider Episcopal Church: theologically innovative, at the edge of mainstream Christianity, secularly attuned, declining, canonically fundamentalist, and ready to sue or depose to obtain its way. By contrast, there is the culture of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: Scripturally centered, critiquing the secular agenda, among the fastest (and few) growing dioceses of the Episcopal Church (relative to population decline), focused on congregational mission, allowing vast freedoms in the form and manner of ministry. Given that we must choose – and I do believe that national actions have now dictated that we must – which is the predominant culture we desire individually and corporately to embrace: national Church or local diocese?

He goes on to add what some of the results of his resolution passing would be:

If Resolution One passes, our work in the year ahead would likely include determination of the Province with which the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh might re-align, development of acceptable options available to minority congregations, and negotiation, both nationally and with plaintiffs locally, about a mediated alternative to continuing or escalating litigation.

I will add more details later, but, for now, it seems that things are going to change here permanently, although it should be noted that this would not take effect unless the same resolution was passed again at the convention in 2008.

After last night’s experiment in live blogging, a first for me, I have to say that I was generally pleased at the results. Although I was not chatting with a lot of people in real time during the course of the meeting, I do think that I gave a pretty fair sense of how it went. I want to take a few minutes here to reflect on what happened at the meeting, and in the ensuing conversation out on the sidewalk afterwards, which is, as usual in these cases, much more interesting than what was said inside!

I think that in general the meeting accomplished two things. First, it allowed a number of people from within District VII of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to speak to the leadership of the diocese and express their views. These are mostly, although not all, those who are in the minority in this particular diocese, meaning that they generally agree with the direction that The Episcopal Church has take in recent years, and would like to remain full members. Although as I said during the event, this was a bit frustrating for someone such as myself who has heard these arguments before many, many times and have learned that they are unlikely to convince anyone to change their views, nevertheless I must acknowledge the very real pain felt by many who were present. I am glad that they had the chance to express their views.

The second thing that happened at the meeting is that we were given a clearer understanding of the direction that the diocese is considering moving. Although the secular, legal aspects of the lawsuit involving Calvary Church and the diocese are not moving in a direction that the diocese would prefer, it is clear that they are not yet willing to back down. The idea of leaving all of the property and endowments of each parish and simply ‘going away’ was mentioned by Bishop Scriven, but probably, as Harold Lewis pointed out to me afterwards, only as an option that though a technical possibility, was not really likely to happen in reality.

With the move towards “leaving the Episcopal Church” that was stated in the document I quoted in an earlier post, it is clear that some sort of plan has begun to emerge about the direction that they think the diocese needs to move. The insistence from the panel that they do not have any real idea what that direction might be is, frankly, hard to fathom. If it was discussed, and in fact, as was stated, if the pros and cons of each of the proposed ideas was discussed, there must have been some talk about what a possible future could look like. For me, the reluctance of those involved to inform us either about the content of this ‘pro and con’ discussion or about what they see specifically as the future of the diocese is a signal to me that something is in the works.

The conclusion is that Diocesan Convention will have to make some sort of decision at its next meeting, but if my reading of the history of this diocese is accurate, that will be far more likely to be a tacit approval of a previously planned idea, rather than a real discussion of what the possibilities might be. Although I generally consider myself a centrist, my experience in this diocese is that they tend to simply play by the idea that the ends justify the means. On the one hand, they say that the Primates of the Anglican Communion have the right to interfere with dioceses of the Episcopal Church, but on the other hand they say that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has no right to interfere with the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

What they are saying, really, is that since they are right anything that they need to do to move the Church in the direction that they want must also be right. Please go back and re-read my quote from St. Basil the Great below — what a sorry place for the Church to be in.

Two related questions:

1) “I would like to see a document that outlines these pros and cons that were discussed about all four options at the meeting so that we can really talk about them here.” There no response from the panel to this request.

2) “I would like to hear from the panel about what they see as the plan of where we are going, even if it is hypothetical or simply your opinion, but I think we as a diocese need to be aprised as to what those decisions are and why.”

–>Bishop Scriven responded: “If we decide to do nothing then there will be parishes and people in this diocese that will leave .. there are people in other dioceses in The Episcopal Church that are joining to other parts of the Anglican Communion such as Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria … I think the question is whether this is a diocesan question or one of individual parishes and people.”

The meeting adjourned at 9.30pm and Bishop Scriven led us in prayer. I have to say that I was mostly frustrated by the lack of answers provided by the leadership of the diocese in terms of their thoughts. Although they are saying that they want to hear other “alternatives” to their own thoughts, it is difficult to engage with that when one does not know what their ideas are.

I asked my question and finished by saying: “I would like to hear from you who attended the Diocesan Leadership Retreat what was specifically discussed about the fact that resisting, as you say, morphed into leaving The Episcopal Church.” I got three answers from the panel:

–>Mary Rourke: “The general tone of the meeting seemed to be that splitting up was where we were moving … one of the members of the standing Committee said ‘when did resist turn into leave’ and we said it just somehow did … we are in a place of terrible unclarity.”
–>Canon Mary Hayes: “We went though these options one by one and discussed the costs, and there were incredible costs to every choice, but if you go to other districts they have said that there would be an incredible cost to them if we do nothing.”
–>Bishop Henry Scriven: “If we follow the suggestion that we just leave, there will be a lot of empty churches … we could leave property and endowment, there would be a vast new work that would need to be done in that diocese to fill those churches … but it seems to be that the vast majority seems to be of this tendency … but the decision is placed on Diocesan Convention so nothing can happen until then.”

Most people are still talking about their views, needing to be heard, which is fine, but is rather frustrating for those of us who hoped to get some sense of where the Diocese might actually go.  I’m going to try and ask this question myself and see what I can get them to say.

Bishop Scriven is now giving us a brief summary of the recent history in the Anglican Communion which has led up to the current situation in this diocese. We are now going to have questions or comments to the leadership here gathered. A number of people are making comments, mostly in support of the Episcopal Church. Most are not asking questions, but are making points. One actual exchange:

Harold Lewis: “I want to question the vow of silence of the Dioscesan Leadership. While it may be true that (1), (2), and (4) are not rejected, but it is what it says … I think that we have a right to know the decision process that came to these conclusions … the question is where are we going? … if we are leaving the Episcopal Church what will be formed? … I have no doubt that (3) will be past, and that the powers that be have no doubt what the next step is … I would ask they would tell us what they think about where we would go if we left.”

Bishop Scriven: “I honestly don’t know .. you can believe that or not .. but it is true. You asked several questions .. the decision was really just a straw poll after discussing the pros and cons of each option. What I think could happen, as a result of the rejection of the Primates’ request, then the Primates could group together and say that The Episcopal Church is no longer what it was, and that an alternative body could be formed … but I don’t know what it might be … ”

Here are the options that were discussed (as copied from the handout presented this meeting):

1) No Change: Continue as we are responding to challenges presented by The Episcopal Church, The Anglican Communion and/or some of its constituent parts.

2) Submit to The Episcopal Church: Acede to the demands of The Episcopal Church.

3) Resist: Find new ways of resisting the demands and direction of The Episcopal Church. During the discussion, this option morphed into leaving The Episcopal Church.

4) Dissolve the Diocese: Follow procedures delineated in the settlement of Calvary lawsuit for individual parishes to leave The Episcopal Church and this diocese. When those parishes have left, Diocesan staff would resign.

Numbers (1), (2), and (4) were rejected, and (3) was selected as a basis for further discussion. Despite this, we are being told now by Canon Mary Hayes that “none of these have been rejected,” although there seems to be some debate about this. We are now opening the floor for discussion, and talking about what this meeting hopes to accomplish.

I’m here at the Diocese of Pittsburgh District VII meeting at St. Andrew’s Church in Highland Park.  We opened with prayer for all the churches in the District, sang Hymn 680, O God Our Help in Ages Past, and then we were welcomed by Roger Westman, District Convener.  With him are Bishop Henry Scriven, Canon Mary Hayes, Mary Rourke (?) from the District Council.  I was particularly touched by the last verse of the hymn:

O God, our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, be thou our guide while life shall last, and our eternal home.

We begin with thoughts about the recent diocesan meeting, and will first discuss the various options.