Diocese of Pittsburgh Update

From 3RiversEpiscopal --

Minority recognized as 'true' Episcopal Diocese

Friday, October 10, 2008

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has recognized as the true Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh those who refused to secede Saturday with the majority of local Episcopalians into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America.

She confirmed the Rev. James Simons and two others as the "rightful Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh." The Standing Committee governs in the absence of a bishop. The Rev. Simons, rector of St. Michael of the Valley, Ligonier, was the only member of the previous Standing Committee to oppose secession.

Both dioceses now call themselves "the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."

"The presiding bishop's word today was certainly welcome news," said Rich Creehan, spokesman for the U.S.-based Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) called her decision irrelevant.

"Though Presiding Bishop Schori's actions aren't surprising, they are without effect. We continue to be the same Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh we've always been, in the same churches, pews and offices, with the same commitment to Anglicanism rooted in biblical truth and witness," it said.

The split was led by those who believe many Episcopal bishops have abandoned classic Christian doctrine. So far, 19 of 74 congregations have said they will not secede.

The Rev. Simons has appointed two others to the Standing Committee: the Rev. Jeffrey Murph of St. Thomas, Oakmont, and Mary Roehrich, a member of St. Andrew's, Highland Park. Like the Rev. Simons, the Rev. Murph is theologically conservative, while Ms. Roehrich is more liberal.

He also named the Rev. Scott Quinn of the Church of the Nativity, Crafton, "director of pastoral care" for those from divided parishes. The Rev. Quinn will hold a meeting Thursday at 7 p.m. in Trinity Cathedral, Downtown. The cathedral serves both dioceses.

The Episcopal diocese will hold a convention Dec. 13.

Diocese of Pittsburgh Historical Moment

It seems that the Diocese of Pittsburgh has long had its tensions. Notably, in the days of evangelical Anglican contention against catholic revivalism, the Diocese of Pittsburgh saw its share of those troubles. Of course, that era - the mid-19th century - saw the schism by which the Reformed Episcopal Church broke away.

Here we see a letter from the first Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Kerfoot, to a group of laity who certainly do NOT want any ritualist or High Churchmanship to go on in their parish. (The parish, Christ Church, Meadville, is now in the Diocese of Northwest Pennsylania.)

My Dear Brethren:--On my return from a visitation on the 30th inst., I received here a paper without date, but inclosed in an envelope post-marked Meadville, July 21. The paper was signed by the nine members of the Parish of Christ Church, Meadville, to whom I address this reply. You claim to speak only for yourselves, as private members of the congregation, representing no other members, not in any way speaking for the Vestry. The paper calls itself a Protest; it does not come to me as a "presentment," in any of the ways provided in Section I, Canon I, of this Diocese. It does, however, charge a Presbyter of the Diocese with various uncanonical, and unrubrical acts and customs, and what is yet more serious with a "total disregard of his pledged word." These are very grave charges; the responsibility incurred by those who make them is very grave; the good standing and reputation of a Presbyter as a Minister and as a man, is impugned, and his Bishop is called on to council and admonish him.

That paper is signed by nine members of the church, several of them aged men, and therefore claim the Bishop's respectful attention; and in view of all this I give careful regard to its statements. I gather out of the paper seven specifications.

1. The use of the Offertory in the ordinary collections.

2. The Choral Service.

3. Intoning the Prayers.

4. Singing the Responses to the Commandments.

5. The choir singing alternate verses in the Offertory sentences.

6. The frequent use of the Surplice instead of the Gown in preaching.

7. Turning the back on the congregation in the service, especially in consecrating the elements in the Holy Communion.

I will notice each item; and I do this trusting to my knowledge of your Parish and its history without waiting to make any further inquiries touching the facts of the [11/12] case, either from the rector or yourselves: 1. In putting No. 1 among your charges, you have forgotten or overlooked the fact, that as Bishop of the Diocese I have twice given you my official judgment and council on this point; once in a special meeting of the Vestry of your Parish (April 27, '67) which I attended at their request that I might decide sundry questions touching the proper customs and rules of the service; and again in my address to the Convention of the Diocese in Erie the next month. You will find that judgment on page 79 of the Journal of 1867. It justified and recommended the mode which your charge seems to condemn, which is (I believe) the mode used in Meadville, which has been my own custom for more than a quarter of a century, and which is a very common, if not a very general use throughout the Church in our Country. No. 2 and 3, must refer to a very few and special services which were desired by some of the people, and which were so held as to interfere very little if at all, with the privileges of those who did not like such a service. Such an indulgence to the musical tastes of a part of the congregation might be premature, or inexpedient or unedifying, but it cannot be pronounced a violation of the order of the Church, such musical services are not common in America, but they are very common as well as ancient in England. They need not, and in the instance in Meadville I know they do not, imply any feeling or taste alien to our Anglican Communion and Church. No's. 4, 5, and 6, are, and long have been, among the allowed uses of the American Church. No's. 4 and 6 have been my own custom for more than a quarter of a century, and to No. 5, I can see no objection. I often meet the custom in and out of my Diocese. These items (4, 5 and 6,) may be questions of taste, but cannot be made questions of principle. No doctrine can be involved in them.

No. 7 is too general and indefinite a statement. I must interpret your words by my knowledge of the worship in your church. This leads me to infer only that for convenience of kneeling or worship, or for proper privacy in his own devotions, the minister may stand or kneel in the same direction with the people, not facing them, and that this has no significance beyond general convenience, propriety and reverence. The case being thus understood as I believe, that it fairly and truly ought to be, no devout churchman need deny his Pastor the comfort and edification in God's House which a minister craves as well as his people. My own feeling and custom express themselves in this answer. The rubrical posture of the Priest in consecrating the [12/13] elements in the Holy communion is "Standing before the Table." This, almost necessarily as our chancels are generally arranged, make most of the people who are kneeling towards the table, see the back of the Minister, if their eyes are lifted from their Prayer Books. How shall the Priest "stand before the table" and not have his back to the people? Those of you who have been present when I have administered the Holy Communion in your church, must have noticed that I have so stood "before the Table" in that one part of the Eucharistic service. I do not see how else the Rubric can be so accurately complied with. The point is one of no special moment. The consecrating Minister sometimes stands at the right side of the Table as in the ante-communion Service, but the natural meaning of the Rubric is the use which you seem to condemn.

Turning and bowing to the altar, as acts of reverence, or worship of any sort towards it, or to any person or presence or sacred thing there, or as implying any exageration or perversion of the Church's doctrine of the Holy Communion, would be grave error in opinion and use; but I know your Rector's Theology and custom too well, to have any apprehension of any such error in him.

As to the pledge to the Vestry which the Sector is alleged to have disregarded, of course I must wait some such complaint coming from the Vestry itself. I am however very sure that Mr. BYLLESBY is incapable of any wilful violation of his promise, and I ought also to add that the cordial and respectful terms in which many members of Vestry have spoken to me of Mr. BYLLESBY make me sure that no complaint is contemplated by these official representatives of the Parish. It is a very serious charge, this one of the forfeiture of one's word. Men in the world repel the charge with indignation, for it blights their good name. May I remind honorable laymen that like themselves, the clergy have some rights in this matter of character, and an honest pride in their good name; and that their hearts are as sensitive as those of other men to the intimations of dishonor? Need I remind any one that a clergyman's good name is dear to his home and his children and that the church counts on her laity protecting the reputation of her clergy as well as her own honor from inconsiderate and unjust reproach?

And now, dear Brethren, will you not all for Christ's sake and his Church's give up this opposition to your Pastor? If your Rectors are to be thus beset by objections and hindrances; if their office among you is to bring them little freedom to act and frequent occasion for humiliation [13/14] and disappointment, no man of energy or power will take the place. You have such a man now, and your congregation is thriving as it never did before in numbers and resources. You see this. I beg you to cease opposing the work. You cannot stereotype the church's feelings and modes after the mind or preference of any man, old or young, or after the custom, in little matters that happened to prevail a generation ago. Other men will have their wishes and tastes, and new generations will think and act for themselves; and if those put in chief control of the Church in a Diocese decide such matters of detail as it is their office to do, when discussions arise about them,--ought not orderly men at once, and cheerfully concur, and let the discussion drop? How else can the church perform in Meadville her proper and much needed work of declaring and sustaining the truth about our Redeemer's Deity as defined in the Creeds, and of manifesting forth her character and office as His Church and Kingdom among men?

Some of you, brethren, are now very aged men. Your time for doing good cannot be long. You hope that you have done the Church some good service in the past. I pray you to use the rest of your days and of your influence to promote that spirit of love, humility and peace which is so essential to the Church's order and growth, which so beautifies the closing years of good men; and so further their preparation for the clearer light and the fuller love of the Church in the better world. I am Brethren,

Truly and faithfully,

Your friend and servant in Christ,

JOHN B. KERFOOT,
Bishop of Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh, Aug. 1, 1868.

Diocese of Pittsburgh

My grandfather was from Pittsburgh, and there he died. I have art on my wall from my grandmother who was a painter there in the 1920's - gorgeous impressionist views of the city. I have spent plenty of time walking around that three river city- whether Squirrel Hill, the parks, or the art museum. My aunt was a nun at St. Rosalia's on Greenfield Avenue, and as a clueless lad, my cousins and I walked from there all the way downtown in the mid 1970's, through what we realized was a fairly dangerous neighborhood. But we had no trouble at all.

Pittsburgh is a beautiful place, and now my sisters and brothers in Christ there are divided.

With the news of the schismatic efforts by the majority of clergy and lay delegates to convention there, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh continues in my prayers.

While I pray for all there, my ongoing concern will be for those who wish to remain Episcopalians there. I am intrigued that while the clergy voted for schism four-to-one, the laity voted by less than two-to-one in favor of schism. The clergy vote is less surprising, but the lay vote is very hopeful. Some seventy lay delegates voted against the move, and some sixteen parishes have for now identified that they intend to remain Episcopalian.

Those parishes are here identified as:

St. Peter’s Episcopal Church
4048 Brownsville Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15227-3499 (Brentwood)
412-884-5225

St. Barnabas Episcopal Church
989 Morgan St
Brackenridge, PA 15014
724-224-9280

All Saints’ Church
3577 McClure Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Brighton Heights)
412-766-8112

St. Thomas’ Episcopal Church
139 North Jefferson Avenue
Canonsburg, PA 15317
724-745-2013

Church of the Nativity
33 Alice Street
Pittsburgh PA 15205 (Crafton)
412-921-4103

Calvary Episcopal Church
315 Shady Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15206 (East Liberty)
412-661-0120

St. Brendan’s Episcopal Church
2365 McAleer Road
Sewickley, PA 15143 (Franklin Park)
412-364-5974

St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church
5801 Hampton Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15206-1615 (Highland Park)
412-661-1245

St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
336 East Tenth Avenue
Homestead PA 15120-1613
412-461-5291

Church of the Holy Cross
7507 Kelly Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15208 (Homewood)
412-242-3209

Church of the Advent
51 South First Street
Jeannette, PA 15644
724-523-9390

St. Michael’s of the Valley Episcopal Church
P.O. Box 336
Ligonier, PA 15658-0336
724-238-9411

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
1066 Washington Road
Mt. Lebanon, PA 15228
412-531-7153

Christ Episcopal Church
5910 Babcock Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-2548 (North Hills)
412-364-2442

All Souls Episcopal Church
215 Canterbury Lane
North Versailles, PA 15137
412-823-1440

St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church
149 Walnut Avenue
Scottdale, PA 15683-1940
724-887-5110

St. Francis-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church
2081 Husband Road
Somerset, PA 15501
814-445-7149

Church of the Redeemer
5700 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15217 (Squirrel Hill)
412-422-7100

St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church
600 Pitt Street
Wilkinsburg, PA 15221
412-243-6100

There is more from the remaining Episcopalian blog Three Rivers Episcopal.

Martin Smith Quotation

A church that means business speaks to this crisis of meaning head on and is unafraid to talk of being saved. It encourages people to articulate their doubt, not just about this church teaching or that, but about the value and ultimate meaning of our fragile human lives on this little blue planet circling as a speck in a galaxy that is merely one of billions.

When I hear the gospel addressed to me in the midst of this vertigo of doubt, and accept its poignant insistence that our lives are meaningful because they are what God meant, and that we mean everything to him, and that he means to take us into his life by uniting us to the one who suffered with us and for us, whom he raised from the dead, I can say “This is what it means to be saved, and I want others to receive the same gift.”

Creeds Are Essential

In Episcopal Life, somebody wrote:

"...The Council of Nicea's purpose was to institutionalize Roman power and authority. We are Episcopalians and have been open to the Holy Spirit to help us in the evolution of our worship from the beginning. In the Nag Hammadi discoveries, we are now fortunate to have the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary Magdalene to read. None of the four original Gospels nor these new findings contain the creed..."

Honestly, when will it stop? When will people in a supposedly educated denomination actually do some historical reading? These statements are sophomoric and reflect a lack of any historical depth or sense. Yet, sadly, I hear and see this all the time.

The Nag Hammadi texts, while fascinating, were junked for a reason far more basic than 'imperial oppression of alternative Christianities.' They were junked because they're just not that great. Interesting to be sure - and worthy of preservation - for no books should be burned. But, truly, the far better case for equality and the inclusion of all human beings into the Kingdom and a better society can be made from the canonical Scriptures and the faith of the Nicene creed, than the jumble of thought and ancient weirdness that is to be found in the Nag Hammadi library.

The domination of biblical interpretation by status quo preserving males aside, the Bible itself is the key to true justice for all people. To be quite specific, the Nag Hammadi library are about as sexist as anything anywhere anytime - and more anti-semitic - more anti-creational - than most.

It wasn't Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code nonsense, but somebody has created a sound-bite and it just won't go away - and here it is:

"The Roman empire foisted the Nicene Creed and Canon of Scripture on the world to enforce imperial values and facilitate dominion over the hearts and minds of the Roman world."

Sorry, that's simply not a verifiable historical construction. Rome did plenty of damage - and the Constantinian arrangement indeed hurt the Gospel in my view.

BUT,

First of all, as regards 'ending controversy' and promoting catholic Christianity as an imperial decree, Constantine was likely an Arian. Since Nicea the imperial force within the Church often was opposed to the Nicene faith, with 'Nicene' theologians like Gregory Nazianzen doing their most to resist the imperial efforts - and often failing. Moreover, Gregory and the Cappadocians took the lead of Macrina the Elder (and also later the Younger) in defending the 'catholic' faith. As regards the role of women, many took an incredibly powerful role in the synthesis between Church and Empire by virtue of their high-rank - see Helena, Olympias.

The problem with this dime-novel version of 'progressive Christianity' as put forth in books like the Da Vinci Code, and the work of Pagels, et. al., is that it belies the real truths of history, while conceding Nicene Christianity to those of the most conservative and anti-egalitarian mindset. Far from 'saving Christianity from fundamentalists' it actually hands over the catholic faith of the Creeds to them - and offers instead a non-historical, fantasy, New Age version to 'progressives.'

No, contrary to what these anti-Nicene folks think must be the case, the Nicene faith - the faith of the Creeds, of the Book of Common Prayer, of the Episcopal Church's formularies - is no small faith. It belongs to the saints of the ages, and carries forth the good apostolic message. The Nicene faith is the faith of Egeria, Melania, Julian, Helena, Macrina the Elder, the Cappadocians, the Eastern sages, the Irish monks, and the Christian leaders of the civil rights movement in the American South, and the anti-apartheid evil in South Africa.

Friends, please, the full baptismal covenant (which is built upon the faith of the Apostles Creed) is what we say we're all about - and not just a sentence or two.

Thanks be to God, the progressive catholic tradition so strongly witnessed to in the Book of Common Prayer, the Hymnal 1982, has social justice, equality between all human beings, and the desire to make a better world always in its heart, while at the same time fully affirming and cherishing the faith of the historic faith - attested to so well in Scripture, Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, dominical sacraments, and historic episcopate.

Ironically, in a world to which the Episcopal Church matters largely not a fig - those Episcopal ministries which are growing, vibrant and alive tend to be the ones that have remained intentional in the traditional elements of the faith, while also working for justice and a better world in which women, gay people, the poor, the marginal, the oppressed, and those with hearts beaten and broken can find full membership and joy in life in Christ in eucharistic community shaped by the biblical witness, the apostolic tradition, and the Nicene boundaries of essential theological proclamation.

Bishops of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania

Two diocesan bishops in Pennsylvania have been deposed in the past month. Bishop Charles Bennison last week received an ecclesiastical judgment against him on conduct charges, and Bishop Bob Duncan was deposed by action of the House of Bishops in September. The deposition of Bishop Duncan happened just weeks before the diocese was to vote on a Duncan-led effort to 'take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church.'

At any rate, it is a difficult time for Episcopalians in Pennsylvania's two 'big-city' dioceses. It is a curious now-historical fact that a leading voice of Anglican extreme conservativism - Bob Duncan - and a leading voice of Anglican extreme liberalism - Charles Bennison - should both have been deposed from sees in the same state, and within weeks of each other.

What matters of course is that there are thousands of faithful people in both dioceses - Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania - who need faithful Christian leadership and oversight. For those of us who deeply love this Episcopal Church - and who seek to keep the faith of Christ born, crucified, risen and coming again within this Episcopal Church - let us keep our brothers and sisters in Christ in prayer. I especially will keep those seeking to remain Episcopalian in the Pittsburgh area in my prayers. This is a time to bear with them in their struggles, and to pray that the Spirit provides for them.

A link for Pittsburgh Episcopalians here, a good blog from a faithful Iron City Episcopalian is here. And for Pennsylvania here.

The New York Times - Not Quite

A lifelong fan of the New York Times, I nonetheless agree with what it's more conservative readers say about it: That the Gray Lady uses its considerable power as the paper of record for the United States in the furthering of a generally liberal agenda. It does, not only on the editorial page, but in the way its editors feature and promote stories. All papers do this, of course. But given it's usually 'liberal' bent, I am consistently surprised that the Times, which one would assume would give friendly treatment to the similarly generally liberal Episcopal Church, often gives it poorly informed coverage.

In particular, comes yesterday's piece on the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and its place in the wider Anglican saga of these days. Here is the following quotation:

The drive to divorce the Episcopal Church arose after the election of V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. But the secessionists say the issue is not simply about homosexuality. “Bishop Robinson is a symptom, not the cause of our disagreement with the Episcopal Church,” Mr. Frank said.

The dispute includes complaints that the national church allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God, or that the only way to God is through Jesus — tenets of faith that conservatives find indisputable.

Now, it is indeed true that the 'secessionists' argue that the Episcopal Church is plainly apostate and heretical. And maybe we are - that's for the Lord Jesus to decide. Yet, while some Episcopalians may doubt whether Jesus is the Son of God, we do not as a church debate this. Certainly, we have our share of notably heterodox voices doing a lot of talking in the Episcopal Church - Spong being the poster bishop.

But, there is no debate that I'm aware of about the creedal faith - or in particular about the core proclamation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, who by our definition is one with God.

Jesus is not merely the way to God we affirm, we proclaim that the Father and He are One.

It is worth saying that not only are we rank and file Episcopalians on this same message, but so is Gene Robinson himself.

No, the key issue continues to be whether or not Christians - who call Jesus Lord - can come to new ethical understandings based on the experience-, reason-, prayer- and tradition-informed interpretation of Scripture. That's what this is all about.

That and the weaknesses of human beings in a frail institution rife with baggage, structural difficulties, serious fissures of churchmanship and theology, and a world context bent on radical polarization.