From today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.As a final vote approaches on whether the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh should secede from the national church, local Episcopalians who want to remain part of the New York-based denomination are meeting to plan for their future.
"A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternative Solution" will present reasons for opting to stay in the Episcopal Church. It will also present what may happen with property, a new diocesan government and other issues if Bishop Robert Duncan and most local Episcopalians change their allegiance to the theologically conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, which covers six nations in southernmost South America. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
"A Hopeful Future" will take place at 1 p.m. Sept. 13 in St. Paul Episcopal Church, Mt. Lebanon.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08248/909272-85.stm
9 comments:
I posted earlier on this blog (when Mr. Simon’s first put up the Across-the-Aisle group’s press release), the following: “It is sad to see someone whom I once worked with side-to-side for twenty years not only to be opposed to re-alignment but to work to defeat it. Very sad indeed!” Now the Post Gazette confirms my sentiments: "A Hopeful Future" is not primarily an effort to defeat the realignment attempt, since a majority of those voting appear to support the switch, said the Rev. Nancy Chalfant-Walker, rector of St. Stephen in Wilkinsburg and a member of the steering committee of Across-the-Aisle, the group that is organizing the meeting.
Interestingly Mrs. Chafant- Walker says defeat of re-alignment is just not a primary effort implying defeat is still a goal, albeit a secondary one. Active Across-the-Aisle participant, Lionel Diemel, is more upfront, he states clearly on his blog: “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”
This, coming from Mr. Diemel, is not a surprise. I have always known the progressives in the Diocese have been working against the re-alignment. But from a self-professed moderate such as Nano Chalfant-Walker and self-professed conservative such as Jim Simons, this is an admission of great importance. It is one thing to simply choose not to re-align but it is another to work against your bishop, your clergy colleagues and lay friends to try and prevent them from doing so.
The Post Gazette goes on to state, “If convention approves the proposed measures, vacated leadership positions will have to be filled by Episcopalians staying in the church, and core diocesan functions will be performed under new leadership until the diocese regains control of diocesan assets. “We are making plans to assure continuity in the administration of the diocese,” said Simons. “It is with great sadness that we are undertaking these necessary preparations.”
“Regains control of diocesan assets”, is simply a euphemism for suing the legitimate diocese and its leadership, something the progressives have already done through the Calvary lawsuit. Now Mr. Simons and Ms. Chalfant-Walker are putting the re-aligners on notice they will do the same. I suppose Mr. Simons truly is sad -- he feels compelled to sue his bishop and friends. That would make me sad too.
Jesus was quite clear about all this in Matthew 16:26, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?”
I sincerely hope part of the "hopeful future" includes discussion of how to settle the property/endowment issues in a Christian and non-litigious manner. I am in a parish that will not realign, much to my chagrin. I plan on staying with my parish despite this disappointment. However, if there is a legal battle over the assests of the diocese I will leave in utter disgust. There can be an amicable settlement. The conservatives against realignment can't join the legal battle against the realigners. I feel you are obligated to persuade your liberal allies to negotiate a fair settlement. Start discussing how it can be done.
David: You sound panicked. Let me quote Nano from the paper:
"I think the vote to realign is going to happen," she said.
I thought you and Nano were of one mind here.
What of the parish of my parents and myself as well a numerous others who don't wish to leave the Episcopal Church. Should we just let others take something we helped build and fund with time, talent and financial contributions? The nearest church is 15 miles away and I know many elderly parishioners who'd be found out in the cold (or they could just shut up and conform).
I think Mr. Wilson's attitude toward Rev.'s Chalfont-Walker and Simon show just how those who oppose this group get treated when they don't follow along.
I also find it rather nasty that Mr. Wilson uses the title Mr. and Ms. instead of the proper title both Rev. Dr. Simon and Rev Chalfont-Walker are due.
Wonder why I never trusted realignment?
As for opposing my bishop, I don't follow a bishop, I follow Jesus Christ and I'm still hopeful we can still find Christ in each other.
I also apologize to the Rev. Wilson for refering to him as Mr.
Jim
I am not panicked at all, just very sad that you would work against your friends to try snd prevent them from re-aligning and even sue them. But I guess as Bob Dylan says "You gotta serve somebody" and you find it necessary to serve those who currently run the Episcopal Church.
Perhaps you and Nano might want to publically declare that you are not trying to defeat realignment (either primarily or secondarily) and that you will not sue the leadership of the diocese to "recover the assets". No response to this question can only be interpreted as an affirmative.
I would be interested to know how many of the other 10 conservative and moderate clergy who signed the Jan 30 letter are willing to join you in a lawsuit?
Robert Christian, no disrespect was intended by using Mr. and Ms. to refer to Nano and Jim. Mr. is entirely acceptable to a man of Jim's churchmanship. In fact Jim referred to me in another response as Mr. Wilson and wasn't offended at all so there is no need to apologize to me for not using the Rev.
Here you go David: I am not trying to defeat the realignment. I am presenting an option to people. An option that you apparently want me to keep quiet about.
With regard to the lawsuits. I have no desire to see individual parishes sued for property. I have no control over the diocesan issue as that is what the Calvary suit is about.
And by BTW its "Dr."
Jim
I forgot you earned a Dmin from Trinity (Episcopal)School for Ministry. My bad. Dr. Simons it ever shall be.
If you have no control over the diocesan issue why the line about "recovering diocesan assets"? Why mention it at all?
Fr. Wilson--I am very grateful to all of the 12 priests who have publicly said that although they agree with Bishop Duncan on theology, they do not agree with the strategy he is following (leaving TEC). Many of us who are conservative and evangelical, and joined groups years ago designed to keep that faith, never dreamed others of us--also members of those groups-- would try to take us out of the church. Many of us strongly supported the election of Bishop Duncan because we knew he would continue the evangelical direction that Bishop Hathaway had taken. We supported what he appeared to believe in, not him as a person whatever action he decided to take. In my opinion the whole concept of "spreading the evangel" is undermined by the costly division of our
parishes and diocese. --Comment and question about TESM: many of us are very grateful for its existence and for what we have learned in courses there. In a fairly recent edition of Seed and Harvest, it was stated that TESM is for both realigners and reasserters. You seem to be implying that it isn't in your last post, but perhaps I drew an inference you did not intend to make.
Post a Comment