Members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s Standing Committee, Board of Trustees and Diocesan Council discussed the future path of the diocese at Antiochian Village May 20-21.  Speaking at the beginning of the retreat, Bishop Robert Duncan told diocesan leaders that “we’re here together…to discuss our way forward in light of our failure to obtain Alternative Primatial Oversight.”  

Why did the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh ask for an Alternative Primate?  The diocese laid out its concerns here.

Diocesan organizational consultant Cynthia Waisner helped the leadership identify a number of different choices in the light of the rejection of the 2006 appeals and, more recently, the House of Bishops’ rejection of the pastoral plan put forward by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.  The diocese could simply keep doing what it has been doing, remaining on the periphery of The Episcopal Church, but not attempting to reach a concluding moment in the conflict.  It could submit to the will of the Episcopal Church in its majority, reversing the diocesan convention’s actions over the last four years.  It could attempt to separate as a diocese from The Episcopal Church, an option a number of Anglican Communion Network dioceses are considering.  It could attempt to create space for conserving parishes to negotiate an exit from the diocese.

                                                   
Regardless of what option is ultimately adopted, the diocesan leadership was clear about several things.  There is no path forward for the diocese that will not involve significant costs and pain.  Staying with the Episcopal Church in the light of its rejection of mainstream Christianity will force members of the leadership, individuals and congregations to consider cutting their ties to the diocese.  Separating from the structures of the Episcopal Church will force others to reevaluate their relationship with the diocese.  Regardless of the choice, parishes and the diocese are likely to face financial challenges.

“We are facing something that we never thought we would face.  We thought we would prevail.  We thought that what we believed and what the majority of the Communion believed would be provided for,” said Bishop Duncan.

 

While, diocesan leaders reached no immediate consensus on what course to suggest to diocesan convention, there was a strong sense that the diocese should maintain the direction it set at the diocesan conventions of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.  In 2006, the diocesan convention affirmed the appeal for Alternative Primatial Oversight.  In 2005, the convention accepted the Windsor Report.  In 2004, it approved the second reading of an amendment to the diocesan constitution that states the diocese will not be bound by decisions of the national church that are “contrary to the faith and order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.”   In 2003, the convention stated that in the approval of Bishop Gene V. Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, “The Episcopal Church has exceeded its authority and departed from its constitution.”

 

A number of diocesan leaders believed that a decision would soon be required.  “We can’t wait any longer.  I don’t believe anything today that I didn’t believe 40 years ago.  Then I was smack-dab in the mainstream.  Now I’m on the outside looking in,” said Fr. Bill Ilgenfritz of St. Mary’s in Charleroi.  Others are still thinking through the diocese’s options.  Several voiced their desire to see a direction set and a decision made so that they could focus on local ministry.

 

Over the summer months, the diocese will be holding meetings for both clergy and laity to discuss the issues facing the diocese.  The goal will be to shape a direction to be presented to diocesan convention in November.

 

“We have reached a point where, one way or another, there will be a parting of ways.  I pray that all of us, regardless of where we stand, will treat each other with grace and charity as we plan for our futures,” said Bishop Duncan.

 

- Posted May 22, 2007 -