TEC cheatsheet on Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh

Did you know that our very own Bishop Mathes here in San Diego is on this task force, the House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes (as he continues to sue several churches here who are unable to continue in heresy)?

And remind me again why a task force on property disputes is commenting on an issue of "abandonment of communion"??? Huumm???

So when they try to tell you the action against Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh has nothing to do with holding on to the property or keeping the money, just remind them that their own Task Force on Property Disputes is issuing info on Bishop Duncan's deposition - not exactly in their purview.

Questions and Answers about matters involving the Bishop of Pittsburgh

Meeting of the House of Bishops, September 2008

Q: Why is the House of Bishops contemplating action against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh?

A: At its meeting Sept. 17-19, the House of Bishop will be considering the report from its Title IV Review Committee, which certified in December 2007 that Bishop Robert Duncan had "abandoned the communion of this church," primarily because he has been involved with actions and decisions to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church and affiliate it with the Province of the Southern Cone. Under the provisions of Canon IV.9, this certification goes to the House of Bishops for it to consider whether or not to depose Bishop Duncan.

The House of Bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes, through its work to protect property assets within The Episcopal Church, also has concluded that Bishop Duncan openly renounced the discipline of The Episcopal Church, which constitutes abandonment of the communion of this church and requires his removal from ordained ministry, or deposition.

Q: What does "abandonment of communion" mean?

A: The Canons of The Episcopal Church define abandonment as "...an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church ..." (Title IV, Canon 10, Sec. 1)

Q: What kind of things has Bishop Duncan done to constitute this "open renunciation"?

A: Bishop Duncan has actively worked to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the authority of The Episcopal Church. (see House of Bishop’s Property Task Force Memo. "Evidence of Abandonment by Bishop Duncan") He has supported and encouraged the diocesan convention to change its constitution to accomplish this. He also has sought out affiliation with the Province of the Southern Cone, located in South America. All these actions point to his open and conscious renunciation of the authority of The Episcopal Church for him personally and, he hopes, for the entire diocese under his care.

Furthermore, he has used assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to accomplish this goal, and he has stated that he does not now, nor will he, have any obligation to protect the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for the use of The Episcopal Church.

Q: What has caused this rift between The Episcopal Church and Bishop Duncan?

A: This case is about Bishop Duncan's actions, not about his beliefs. For years Bishop Duncan has been a leading spokesman for conservative theological positions. But there are a wide range of theological convictions within The Episcopal Church, and there is room for all those within the church. The issue here is that he has renounced the authority of The Episcopal Church over him and seeks to have his diocese adopt the same policy through a vote of its convention.

Q: The final vote by the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention to split from The Episcopal Church doesn't take place until October 4. Why not wait until after then?

A: While the House fervently hopes that the Pittsburgh convention may yet decide not to vote to sever ties with The Episcopal Church, action involving Bishop Duncan is not tied to a vote on that date. Any action by voters in the Diocese of Pittsburg does not lessen the culpability of Bishop Duncan, since he is encouraging his diocese's departure from The Episcopal Church and is actively working to that effect. Whether or not delegates to the Pittsburgh convention vote to follow Bishop Duncan's abandonment of The Episcopal Church is one thing. That Bishop Duncan already has abandoned The Episcopal Church through an open renunciation and repudiation of its discipline is another, and already is well established.

Also, should the House wait until after October 4 to consider action against Bishop Duncan, the matter normally would not come up again until the spring meeting of the House in March, 2009. People in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, both supporters and opponents of Bishop Duncan's theology, have said that waiting until then to finalize the matter would leave the diocese in far too long a period of limbo to be sustainable. Acting before October 4 also would have significantly positive effects in protecting the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for use by Episcopalians.

Additionally, because the Title IV Review Committee has certified that Bishop Duncan has abandoned the communion of this church, the canons call for consideration of such matters at the next meeting of the House after such a certification.

Q: Is this action just about trying to keep property in The Episcopal Church?

A: This matter, at its root, is about maintaining accountability for one's actions as a bishop within The Episcopal Church. However, there are a complex set of pastoral imperatives involved as well. As Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Duncan controls millions of dollars in assets within the diocese. In a hierarchical institution like The Episcopal Church, canon law vests ultimate ownership of parish property with dioceses, and diocesan property with the wider Episcopal Church. Property is owned not for the benefit of individuals but of the church as a whole.

We are sacramental people who believe in the importance of "outward and visible signs." What happens to the sacred spaces in Pittsburgh matters a great deal to the many faithful members there who want to remain in The Episcopal Church and who have worked hard and given sacrificially to support these facilities. It is the obligation of The Episcopal Church to make certain that property intended for use by Episcopalians is available to future generations of Episcopalians for worship and for mission.

The House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes
The Right Reverend Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, Chair
The Right Reverend Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Right Reverend Mark Hollingsworth, Bishop of Ohio
The Right Reverend John Howard, Bishop of Florida
The Right Reverend William Persell, retired Bishop of Chicago
The Right Reverend Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas
The Right Reverend Mark Andrus, Bishop of California
The Right Reverend Philip Duncan, Bishop of Central Gulf Coast
The Right Reverend James Mathes, Bishop of San Diego

Read it all, and head over to Stand Firm to get a good break-down of the erroneous points in this Q&A.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Weekly message from the American Anglican Council, 9/26

Via email from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved,

There are a number of issues to look at this week. In the United States, the financial crisis continues to deepen, with concerns about jobs, homes, and savings being an increasing topic of conversation among ordinary folks. People are not of one mind as to what the solution is, but with the people feeling uncertain, churches and charitable organizations may feel the impact of this insecurity. Another area that individuals, churches and organizations are looking at is the security and strength of their personal bank accounts, and whether the US Government provides insurance for those accounts. Some people and organizations may be thinking they have more insurance for their bank accounts than they really do. Sitting down and talking with your banker about your situation might be a good thing to do fairly soon.

I would urge churches especially to look at their financial assets, talk to their banker, and see if they need to spread their accounts over two or more banks, so that each account is fully FDIC insured. It also calls to mind the fact that we ought not to put our trust in wealth, but in the one who saves us, blesses us, and provides for our needs.

On a happier note, support for Bishop Duncan is pouring in from around the world. Of course, The Episcopal Church doesn't much care whether the Anglican World disapproves of the way she handled the situation, she would say that the rest of the world was just ignorant of the facts as she has determined them, and if they were properly briefed, they would naturally agree with her. Six English bishops have said that they continue to regard Duncan as a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and this is in addition to messages sent from all corners of the Communion.

Now the countdown is on to the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention on October 4 - what will happen? Will Katharine Jefferts Schori attempt to intervene in the proceedings, or will she wait until the meeting is concluded to take any actions she may be planning? I suspect a great many would agree with the Rt. Rev. Colin Basley, who wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the immediate suspension of the Episcopal Church from any further participation in activities of the Anglican Communion, and calling for recognition of a new orthodox North American Anglican Province named Common Cause Partners Federation.

In many ways, the spiritual/ecclesiastical Anglican Communion meltdown is comparable to the financial meltdown in the US business world. In the latter, people bought sub-prime loans that were in effect bad paper, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, trust was broken, and lies and deceit led to the economic ruination of many - and it isn't over yet! In the spiritual/ecclesiastical realm, church leaders in North America put together sub-prime, bogus spiritual truths, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, persecuted those who raised the alarm, and as a result, trust has been broken, lives spiritually ruined, lies and deceit have caused many to leave their churches and reorganize in line with traditional Christian beliefs, and this is leading to the ecclesiastical ruination of many. The problem with spiritual ruination is that you might wind up in hell (yes, that place that TEC leaders don't believe in - or if it does exist, only a few of us will be in it!).

Meanwhile, the bishop of Washington DC, John Chane, has sued the Central Union Mission over their receipt of government funds to provide help for the homeless in the city. The Mission is a Christian organization, and as part of their feeding and assistance program, they require those participating to attend nightly religious services. Why is Bishop Chane attacking those who help the poor and homeless? Could it be because the Central Union Mission has provided space for an Anglican congregation associated with CANA (St. Brendan's in the City), to hold weekly Sunday evening services? The official reason that Bishop Chane claims is that government help to Central Union Mission is supposedly a violation of the US Constitution, since they require attendance at religious services.

In his opinion, the government isn't supposed to give money to churches: separation of church and state and all that, you know. However, Chane is the bishop of the Washington National Cathedral, and one wonders if the Cathedral hasn't accepted money from the government in one form or another, perhaps for major events held there, or for arts programs, or some other types of event. We know that the Washington DC police department has a police radio relay unit at the very top of the main tower of the Cathedral, and one wonders what other joint ventures the Cathedral has had with city or federal government. It may be that Bishop Chane hasn't had time to see the plank in his own eye.

Let us hope and pray that the ministry of Central Union Mission to the hungry and homeless and to those who need to find God in their lives, is able to continue unimpeded by any Chane-sponsored litigation.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Archbishop may be forced to do fundraising tour to solve £1m Lambeth financial crisis

But not, apparently, in America. From the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which was branded an "expensive exercise in futility" when it finished on Sunday with no agreement over the divisive issue of homosexuality, cost almost £6million to stage.

Most of the money was spent on hiring the University of Kent campus in Canterbury for three weeks, and for providing food and transport for the 670 prelates and their spouses.

But the Lambeth Company, the arm of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion that runs the conference, urgently needs to raise at least another £1m.

To help pay its bills, it was disclosed yesterday that the Archbishops' Council, part of the Church of England, has provided the organisers with an interest-free £600,000 loan after holding an emergency meeting.

The head of the Anglican church in America - the richest province in the Communion - also disclosed that it has been asked to "foot the bill" and claimed that the Archbishop of Canterbury will tour the states to raise money.

The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, said: "Yes we've been asked and the bishops of this church responded in ways that would provide bursaries for those unable to attend.

"I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to come to the United States and do some fundraising work, and we have certainly offered our assistance in that."

Lambeth Palace denied that Dr Rowan Williams will travel to America to ask churches for money, despite the Presiding Bishop's claims. . .

Read it all.

Weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop Anderson

The weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson via email [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

At the AAC, we learned long ago that since the media can help or hurt you, treat them humanely, the way you would wish to be treated. When an event occurs, certainly those present take away their own impressions, but for the vast majority who will only read about it or see it on the TV, the media interprets the event. Why would anyone go out of their way to make life miserable for the media? Although GAFCON in Jerusalem wasn't perfect from a media standpoint, there was a sincere attempt to get the media what they needed: access inside during plenary sessions, interviews with bishops, press conferences, etc. In retrospect, could it have been done better? Absolutely, but there was a genuine attempt to do the right thing for the media.

Contrasted with that philosophy is the view that the media is your enemy and you must a) keep them out, b) choose between good and bad media for access, and c) have everyone so disciplined that their talking points are recited no matter what the question. One has to pity the media, seeing how they are being treated at Lambeth, but then again, it doesn't sound like the bishops themselves are being all that well taken care of, either. The secrecy thing is either hilarious or pathetic: is not everyone there under godly authority? Are some there in defiance of their House of Bishops or their Primate? Are they making a "prophetic statement" by being there anyway? Yet their "prophetic statement" must be kept secret.

Since we know that the Church of England still claims that they have a membership of 25 million souls, and attendance records indicate that in fact they only have 1.6 million, their accuracy with mathematics doesn't seem stellar. Their membership disparity is the spiritual or ecclesial equivalent to the sub-prime loan crisis affecting so many in the USA housing market. Book value of loans doesn't mean much when the money isn't there, and the book value in souls of the Church of England is like a sub-prime loan, overstated, overvalued and under-performing. As the banks have a steep write down on loans, an honest church would acknowledge a steep write down on membership. This of course applies to other parts of the Anglican Communion as well, for example, the American Episcopal Church.

While we are speaking of banks missing money and churches missing people, it is interesting to note that the Lambeth Conference organizers are missing some of both. With a track record of overstating membership, the CofE Lambeth organizers appear to also be overstating the attendance at the Lambeth Conference. Various onsite estimates question the 670 number given by officials, and suggestions of 550 up to 600 are being mentioned by some media sources.

Missing bishops isn't the only thing bothering the Lambeth Conference and Dr. Rowan Williams - there is the lack of money in pounds sterling. In planning a event as large as this, care has to be taken or the event can get away from you and put you in serious debt. Whoever was in charge of this department was apparently busy elsewhere, for Lambeth is between 1 million and 2 million pounds (approximately 2-4 million USD) short. Now, as soon as the Conference closes up shop and everyone departs, the vendors will want to be paid. It is a bit awkward to be short, not just a quid or two, but 2 million. If the bailiff shows up at Lambeth Palace, will the guard open the gate? If he does, will there be a garage sale to raise the funds? If so, there are several pieces in the large waiting rooms that caught my eye, and I might like to bid on them.

Who has that kind of money to bail Dr. Williams out? Who has that much money who would wish to bail Dr. Williams out? TEC? They are still a bit testy over Bishop Gene Robinson's exclusion, and who could forget his exclusion, given his daily pandering to those outside the fence of steel, wanting everyone to see him and know how pained he is at being rejected. Robinson is quoted as saying he is infuriated at being kept out. No, I don't think that TEC is likely to drop a million dollars or more, and if they did, and if Rowan accepted it, he would truly look like a bought man. He won't want to do that; that might be worse than the bailiff coming by. Though, and this is worth thinking about, if TEC did give Lambeth Conference two to four million dollars, it would be that much less money Katharine Jefferts Schori could use to sue devout Christian Anglicans in the United States. So...Katharine, go for it - give him the money, pretend Lambeth is a MDG, and let Dr. Williams worry about his credibility.

Speaking of Bishop Robinson, one has to admire and salute the Sudanese bishops and primate who made such a clear, concise, loving and bold call to Robinson, TEC and the Communion. Their call to Robinson to resign and for all of the TECies to go home and repent was earth-shaking. Bravo!

Dr. Williams has himself called the Lambeth Conference's legitimacy into question, but blamed those who are staying away. One of the three English bishops refusing to come to Lambeth, Peter Broadbent, has invited Williams to put that point to him in person. If Lambeth is itself called into question does that not by inference affect its convener as well? One of the principal rights that the Archbishop of Canterbury has is as a convener of the Church and Communion, and both GAFCON and the large absence of bishops at Lambeth have seriously called into question whether Dr. Williams is still THE convener any longer. He didn't convene GAFCON and it was a huge success, and Lambeth, which he did convene, has come up short of both bishops and money, and seems to be breaking down into contention. Dr. Williams, taking yet another shot at GAFCON, has said, "I think people will have to make the judgment as to whether those provinces who are not here have a coherent alternative to what the Communion as gathered here is saying and wanting to do." Actually, I think people will certainly be making a judgment as to whether the life, vitality and can-do attitude of GAFCON doesn't look a whole lot more inviting and exciting than muddling on with more committees and commissions which meet and talk and write reports.

Ending this week's update on a very positive note, the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) leaders issued a statement today welcoming the Jerusalem Declaration and the statement on the Global Anglican Future, pledging to move forward with the work of Anglican unity in North America.

Drawing from the GAFCON statement where it says that it is now time for the federation currently known as the Common Cause Partnership to be recognized by the Primates Council, the CCP gave notice that they will respond to this invitation. "The intention of the Executive Committee is to petition the Primates' Council for recognition of the CCP as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that the CCP Moderator be seated in the Primates' Council."

I can only wonder what this next week will bring. To God be the Glory.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Anglican TV: The Lambeth challenge

From Kevin at AnglicanTV:

From a ATV Viewer:

"O.k. Kevin I got you up to $1,700.00. Ladies and gentlemen I would like to challenge every viewer who is a member of a congregation which is a part of Common Cause to contribute $10.00 each. It is now 0012 hours on 6/30/08. Let's get this done in the next twenty-four hours. Kevin has been there not only for us, but for our children, so that there is a record for posterity of these momentous days that, God willing, may change the course of history not only for the Anglican Church but for the furtherance of the Great Commission to all the World. Kevin doesn't charge subscription fees, perhaps he should?"

Mr Burton and many others have been very generous to AnglicanTV these last two years. To put this in a global perspective for you -- when I am in England I will be filming the Last Lambeth Conference. It will go great with 30 hours of the First Gafcon Conference.

AnglicanTV is a Not For Profit Ministry - 501(3)c. All donations are tax detectable [deductible].

Changes in missionary compensation prompted by concerns over equity, budget constraints

From EpiscopalLife Online, it looks like budget cuts, they are a'coming [boldface mine]:

Missionaries who work outside of the United States under the auspices of the Episcopal Church will soon see major changes to their compensation.

According to a letter from the Rev. David Copley, Anglican and Global Relations mission personnel officer, sent to all overseas missionaries, the church will no longer pay them a monthly stipend (about $500, in most cases) or cover their airfare, relocation expenses, language study, vaccinations, and any health expenses not covered by insurance. . .

Copley, who works in the church's Office of Anglican and Global Relations, said in the letter and a subsequent interview with ENS that the decision was made in the face of what he called "the realities" of a $50,000 increase in health-insurance premiums for this year, a five percent cut in the current Episcopal Church budget and the $130,000 cost to provide increased pensions contributions for lay missionaries in 2008. . .

Copley said the alternative to the compensation changes was to cut the number of missionaries in order to balance the budget.

"For some of you, this will mean an increase in benefits with the addition of a lay pension component, but for others this will mean that there will be a reduction in support," Copley acknowledged in his letter.

The decision affects about 70 missionaries, for whom the new package will go into effect at the next renewal of their Letter of Understanding with his office, Copley said.

"Missionaries will be asked to raise funds to cover other costs," according to the letter.

Copley, who spent seven years as a missionary in Liberia and Bolivia, acknowledged "it is a lot of money" to have to raise, in addition to what most missionaries routinely gather for their work. He added that he hopes the missionaries' sending congregations and dioceses will look seriously at their financial commitment to the people they send out to minister in the name of the church.

"The hope is that people will get even more involved in the lives of the people they're sending out," he told ENS.

The General Convention budget is "finite," Copley told ENS. "We're hoping that parishes and dioceses will step up to fill the gap," he added. . .

[Randall] Giles [a lay missionary in India for nearly eight years] also said he worries that the changes in compensation will result in a change in the Episcopal Church's missionary efforts. He doubts that there will be many people who can commit to being "long-term presences" overseas "unless they are of absolutely independent means." As a result, Giles said, there may be more people who can only work as missionaries for a few years and may not have the same commitment to the work.

Read it all. Remind me again how much ECUSA is spending on litigation??

Brad Drell: A post to the HOBD listserv regarding 815 and litigation

From Drell's Descants [boldface mine]:

Yes, an attorney’s bill is subject to attorney client privilege, meaning the bill can’t be subpoenaed from the attorney. However, the amounts spent on legal proceedings are not privileged vis-a-vis the bishops requesting this information from a church in which they have a stake as bishops. It is much like a shareholder requesting such information. Such information has to be publically disclosed by publically traded companies. You, I, and any deputy or bishop should have the right to know whether or not 815 is following our established budgetary priorities. We have a right to know how much money is being spent on litigation by 815.

Moreover, if General Convention does not have that right, then it no longer controls the purse strings and is an utter sham as far as governing our church. If two bishops who are members of the junior house can’t get this information, we need to be asking why.

Something tells me that the Executive Council does not want us to know what was being spent on litigation, because if we did know we would not be too happy to see that much money was being spent on litigation. It may also exceed the values of the property over which we are litigating, which makes no economic sense.

However, the sad part is, even if we did know what was being spent by 815 on litigation, you have to add to that what Dioceses are spending on litigation.

I simply do not understand why we are not negotiating these issues. Based on the remarks of our Presiding Bishop, this is an insignificant minority leaving our church - both in numbers and money. Either what the Presiding Bishop says is not true about the “minority” leaving our church, or we are spending money on litigation out of spite rather than to preserve the church’s patrimony for purposes of future ministry. My theory is that litigation is being used as a scare tactic to keep conservatives and moderates who would otherwise leave our church in the church. The assets at issue become irrelevant, and it becomes about fear. A church built on fear is not the Episcopal Church I was born into, nor the one we should be, nor one I will suffer long.

I would commend a recent article on Episcopal Cafe about these property issues:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/church_property_let_go_with_lo.php

The Presbyterians, although hierarchical, have had amicable splits in these situations. I don’t know why we can’t do the same. My only thought is that if conservative money and people leave, then the national church and even some Dioceses will not survive for long. If that is the case and survival is an issue, then maybe some rethinking about what the church has been doing over the last ten years is needed. I can say, for certain, that this litigation strategy to keep the church together is spiritually bankrupt. Lord, have mercy.

Check it out.

Lexington Episcopal Diocese income drops sharply

From the Bible Belt Blogger:

The diocese budget anticipated total income of $1,265,532.76 for 2007. Instead, total income totalled $1,114,580.53. The difference -- $150,952.23.

Click here to see the 38-page budget, which is currently availabe on the diocese's website.

Part of the problem, according to a memo posted online, is that Grace Church in Florence only paid $1,736.17 of its $20,834.04 allocation, a shortfall of $19,097.87.
The total cash in bank diocese dropped from $225,718.87 on Dec. 31, 2006 to $54,805.08 on Dec. 31, 2007, a difference of $170,913.81. . .

Read it all.

Five Talents International announces new microcredit program in Sudan

Somehow I missed this story from the Anglican Communion Network in November on the Five Talents Ministry, something Bishop Martyn Minns talked about in my interview with him for AnglicanTV and where he serves as Chairman Emeritus.

Vienna, Virginia — Five Talents International announced today it will be funding an innovative microcredit program in southern Sudan, an area that is transitioning from the ravages of more than 20 years of war. Almost three years after a peace agreement, hundreds of thousands are still internally displaced and others who have found a home are looking to rebuild their shattered lives.

Working with a consortium of partners including the Episcopal Church of Sudan, Five Talents will be assisting a village banking project in Wau Diocese, which was started in September 2005, and currently has 270 members. This is one of the first projects of this type in southern Sudan.

“We have a Christian imperative to reach those who are living in extreme conditions,” said Craig Cole, executive director of Five Talents International. “Life must get better for those affected by generations of war. Creating jobs is one way to transform these communities.”

The services provided through this project will include adult education (beginning with literacy training), local savings mobilization, business development training, Biblical values in the marketplace training, small business development investing and rural microcredit provision.

“This program starts by teaching fundamentals and, over time, members build on those fundamentals and are able to support their families through businesses,” said Suzanne Schultz, Five Talents International Director of Program.

Five Talents’ invitation to participate in this consortium, which includes World Concern, World Relief, Economic Projects Trust Fund of the Navigators, Stromme Foundation and Integra Foundation, was based on Five Talents’ experience and knowledge in working with church leaders, ability to increase capacity within these types of projects, and experience with business-skills curriculum relevant to beginning entrepreneurs.

“Because of the turmoil, many organizations are not working on the foundations for long-term development,” Cole said. “We are one of a few organizations attempting to rebuild the economy and communities’ ability to be self sufficient.”

Five Talents hopes this program will be a model that can be expanded and replicated into other parts of the Wau Diocese and across Sudan, if funding is found. . .

Read it all.

How to assist the Diocese of Pittsburgh

From Jackie Bruchi at Stand Firm:

The following is an email I received from Peter Frank, Director of Communication for the Diocese of Pittsburgh in response to my letter to him advising that many of our readers desired to assist Bishop Duncan and the Diocese in the battle ahead. My request stated that we are already praying for them and asked for specifics of how else we can help. Here is the response:

Assisting the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh,

We are so thankful for the support Anglicans and other Christians from all over the world have already offered to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh over the last few years. In the aftermath of big meetings and big decisions we hear over and over again that people are praying for us and support us.

Stand Firm has brought it to our attention that some are looking for ways to also help financially. Since 2003, the diocese has faced significant legal costs. We have already had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend ourselves. To make sure that paying those costs does not force us to curtail parish and diocesan mission; we have created a “Mission Support Fund.” Since it was founded earlier this year, donors have given some $60,000.

If you would like to give to this fund, send a check made out to The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh with Mission Support Fund in the memo line to:

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
900 Oliver Building
535 Smithfield St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Gifts are tax deductible (we will send you a receipt). On behalf of Bishop Robert Duncan and all of us here in Pittsburgh, thank you again for your past support and willingness to stand with us now during these challenging days. “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1).

Peter Frank
Director of Communications

At this time the Diocese does not have a PayPal link. If that changes, I will do my best to let you know. In the meantime, may I suggest you place Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh in your prayers and consider a donation to this worthwhile cause?

Personal encounters: The church's future depends on missionaries, not mission work

A personal story by the Rev. Richard Lindsley Walton Jr., in EpiscopalLife Online:

In our relationship with the Anglican Communion today, particularly with those in the Global South, it appears we Episcopalians are reaping what we so often have sown by the aloofness of our wired money transfers: the deep division of alienation.

With all due respect to our archbishops, diocesan bishops and professional theologians, the essential point is this: It is much harder to dismiss the other when we have lived, worked and worshipped together, when we have shared a common meal. This is especially true about those with whom we have the most profound disagreements. Living together is still the best way to discover what we truly have in common and what it means to be in communion.

From the first hour Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, she made it clear that she believes the church is currently being forced to neglect its most urgent mission. A few months later, on the day Jefferts Schori was officially invested, when addressing in her sermon those who "disdain" the Episcopal Church's theological position on human sexuality, she proclaimed the great importance of making poverty history, of funding AIDS work in Africa, of distributing anti-malarial mosquito nets around the developing world. And yet, as laudable as those aims and projects are, the question is not the importance of mission; it is the means by which we do it.

In 1933, close to 500 Episcopal missionaries were serving outside the United States. By the late '70s, however, there were fewer than 70. And the trend continued to decline, or to show unstable improvement, until the 1990s. . .

. . . The decline in Episcopal mission is a complicated story, but much of it had to do with a trend toward sending money to fund development projects rather than sending missionaries themselves. That trend often was motivated by guilt about colonialism, both political and religious, and by fears of current economic and cultural imperialism.

Yet, when compared to other Christian relief agencies, the Episcopal Church was not even notably generous. That is the bad news. The good news is that by the dawn of the new century, Episcopal Church mission work began a remarkable renewal. The future of that renewal, however, is very much in question. . .

. . . For decades, dioceses around the communion consistently have requested large numbers of educators along with medical personnel, and more specifically theology instructors, but the Episcopal Church often has shied away from education, especially theological education, as seemingly nonessential. . .

Unfortunately, Walton's suggestion for mission is to export ECUSA's brand of theological chaos, but read it all for yourself.

Preliminary Report of the Program Budget & Review Cmte Regarding the Funding Mechanism for the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia

Given the situation here in the Diocese of San Diego, I found interesting Sarah Hey's posting at Stand Firm on the preliminary budget report from the Diocese of Southern Virginia:

. . . As these issues continue diocese by diocese, parish by parish, the "Funding Mechanism" of each diocese will be revised and tinkered with, since dioceses, of course, must be maintained . . . particularly staff salaries and national church pledges. Those two things in particular are vital to the mission of the church, I'm told often.

With the above as background, a layperson in the Diocese of Southern Virginia emailed me the preliminary report from the Diocese of Southern Virginia and I'm posting it below for your perusal. . .

From the preliminary report itself:

. . . Over the past few years, the pledge amount has declined. The services that once were provided have been reduced or eliminated. Most colleges in our Diocese do not have chaplains. The Diocese provides minimum support to St. Paul’s College. The support for the outreach charities has dwindled; funding has dropped from $99,241 in 2002 to $50,745 in 2007. Small congregations and missions have not been supported fully. Youth and formation ministries have suffered.

As a result, Council delegates have asked the Executive Board to recommend an equitable mandatory assessment.

In considering various alternatives, this Report considered two components. One component is the “base” used to determine the pledge amount and the other component is the multiplier (i.e., the percentage). Further, any recommendation to amending the Canons should include a provision for “enforcement” of the Canon, as well as a means to excuse a parish that cannot afford to pledge the mandatory amount. The Canons need to answer the question: “What happens if a parish cannot afford or declines to comply with the Canon?”. . .

The report then lists five alternative funding alternatives, and ends with this delightful and godly section entitled "Failure to Comply."

Any revisions to the Canons also need to address this issue: failure of a parish to remit the amount due. Related to this, the Canons need to address “what if a parish can’t remit the mandatory amount?”

Typically, the penalty is the loss of voice and vote at Annual Council. Rather than setting a specific “punishment”, the Canons could require that the parish file an explanation with the Executive Board or a committee of the Executive Board that would recommend what action to take.

Canon VII Of Finances would include:

“Any Parish or Mission that fails to pledge and/ or remit its pledge based on this Canon must submit to a committee, established solely for this purpose, of the Executive Board a report on why it cannot comply. This committee shall review the facts and issue a recommendation to the Executive Board as to what actions the Diocese should take. The Executive Board, by a majority vote, then will determine the action to take against such parish or mission.”

Read it all.