As a diocese we have come to a fork in the road. Some will take one course forward. Others will elect the other course. All of us will choose the road we do because of our Faith, because of how we understand the Gospel. But our understandings are quite different. Indeed, it has become clear that our understandings are not only different, but mutually exclusive, even destructive to one another. .

This is not a place we would wish to stay, even if we could. Forces beyond our control have been inching us toward – sometimes hurtling us toward -- this fork for a very long time. The Episcopal Church [at least the majorities of the bodies that claim to speak for it] has declared itself “separate and independent” [B032, 75th General Convention], has refused on constitutional and canonical grounds to provide sufficient differentiation to our diocese under our request for Alternative Primatial Oversight and the Communion’s plan for a Primatial Vicar, has declared the “firewall” erected by our 2003/2004 amendment to Article I of our diocesan constitution to be “null and void.” and has made it clear in the consent process for former Pittsburgh priest Mark Lawrence that conservative dioceses like Pittsburgh will never again be allowed to simply elect a bishop of their own choosing. [While unofficial reports this week indicate consent has finally been obtained for Fr. Mark – one year and two first-ballot elections later – the point I am making is more than proved by what has been demanded and required.] This is why we are at the fork in the road, and why a choice by all of us can no longer be avoided. These realities are the context in which this 142nd Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh assembles. This is the context of this address. So rather than the accustomed “year-in-review/year-in-prospect” address I believe it best to focus on the defining decisions before us, leaving the budget, the videos, the mission minutes and the numerous printed and spoken reports to summarize the richness and the commitments of our wider life as a diocese.

THE TIME HAS COME

Divided in Essentials (without prospect of short-term resolution)

Since the General Convention’s decision to confirm the election of a same-sex partnered bishop for the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, we in the Diocese of Pittsburgh have discussed, debated and attempted to convince each other about whether this action, and the Scriptural re-imaging behind it, was church-rending or not. We have faced into these issues in six successive Special and Annual Conventions, and in many other settings. What is more, majority leadership in the diocese has sought to involve the global Anglican Communion in forcing a retreat by the national Episcopal Church, just as minority leadership in the diocese has resorted to civil litigation to attempt to coerce the diocesan majority into submitting to the Faith and Order innovations of the wider Episcopal Church. The formation of the Anglican Communion Network, the overwhelming vote for Alternative Primatial Oversight and for ending participation in Province Three were met by vestry resolutions of disassociation from the Network, loyalty oaths to the new Presiding Bishop, and unofficial representatives at Province Three. Four years into this, we are more polarized, not less, and there is no prospect of resolution, only of a mediated separation as an alternative to the public scandal of ever-spiraling litigation or canonical proceedings.

Against this backdrop, this year’s pre-Convention hearings, numerous parish and district meetings, gatherings of clergy and lay leaders in both camps, staggering legal expenses, private attempts to open channels to a mediated parting – all reveal a growing acceptance in the diocese that our differences are presently irreconcilable, and that for most realignment of the diocese with another Province of the Communion (and even the acknowledged possibility of failure in the attempt) would be preferable to carrying on the fruitless effort at continued federation with the Episcopal Church. It is clear to most on both sides, that continuing efforts to convince, at best, and coerce, at worst, will only deepen the failure of all. A charitable and gracious provision for the minority to stay within the realigned fellowship of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh or to be given freedom to separate from us and align more directly with the wider Episcopal Church has also emerged as a course for which there is, I believe, a strengthening consensus.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • TEC Bishops • TEC Conflicts • TEC Diocesan Conventions • Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion) • Same-sex blessings

1. Jeffersonian wrote: To quote Theoden King: “So it begins.” Go with God, +Duncan. November 2, 3:43 pm | [comment link]

2. Tom Hightower wrote: My prayers are with Bp. Duncan and the Diocese.  We can only stand on the truth of God’s Word. November 2, 6:17 pm | [comment link]

3. AnglicanFirst wrote: Bishop Duncan has clearly established that his leadership in the unfolding drama of maintaining the Anglican expression of “the Faith once given” in the United States. His statements and his leadership express a true Anglican ‘sense’ of what the other orthodox bishops and priests within ECUSA must say and do.  Regardless of the cost.  I say regardless of the cost, because I sense mortal timidity on the part of many clergy, and on the part of many of the laity. You know 39 years ago, if one of my PBR, river patrol boat, two boat patrols had seen a friendly aircraft shot down within a kilometer of the river or canal that they were in, there would have been no hesitation, they would have sent a patrol of five or six sailors ashore to rescue any survivors regardless of the size of the enemy force that they might encounter.  That took mortal courage in a mortal arena of combat. Can we ask anything less in this spiritual arena of combat that has been created by the revisionists now running ECUSA. November 2, 7:06 pm | [comment link]

4. John Wilkins wrote: duncan+ really wants to leave.  From my vantage point he has delusions of grandeur.  That he is standing on “God’s Word” has little to do with anything:  even the devil can do that.  anglican First notes that this is “spiritual combat,” which just illustrates how wildly different we see it.  to me this is a fight that simply doesn’t need to happen.  It has little to do with God, and everything to do with sinners.  Whenever I hear someone says “God tells me…” I translate this as “I believe that.”  And what will they do with all the priest’s pensions? November 2, 11:52 pm | [comment link]

5. Pegg76 wrote: #1 - My thoughts exactly. New member here, from Diocese of Pittsburgh, just checking in… greetings all and keep the prayers coming! November 3, 12:39 am | [comment link]

6. MargaretG wrote: John “even the devil can do that” Yes, we have all noticed that over the last few years. November 3, 4:47 am | [comment link]

7. MJD_NV wrote: Good speech, which I understand was given a standing ovatoin from the floor. Our prayers are with you, Pgh. November 3, 7:58 am | [comment link]

8. Connecticutian wrote: John, it’s distressing that even the devil can stand on God’s word, but it’s too shaky for the PB and many other TEC Bps. Kudos and Godspeed to Bp Bob and the Dio of Pittsbgh, and to Common Cause in taking one of a handful of possible faithful courses of action.  Status Quo is among the unfaithful options at this unfortunate stage. November 3, 9:15 am | [comment link]

9. Harvey wrote: John is the statement you made “..the devil stands on God’s word.” found in scripture..  If so please give a reference.  I know that the devil when tempting Jesus our Lord quoted scripture and there is some argument as to whether he quoted correctly or not depending on who is doing the quotation. There is a scripture also saying that the devil does believe in God and trembles because his judgement is foreknown. November 3, 6:44 pm | [comment link]

10. libraryjim wrote: I beleive that the quotations are that ‘the devil can quote scripture’ and that ‘Satan appears as an angel of light’ and ‘as a hungry lion seeking whom he may devour’. However, nowhere in Scripture does it say that the devil “stands on God’s word”. November 4, 1:11 pm | [comment link]

11. libraryjim wrote: Correction (will teach me to do research before posting!): The devil quotes scripture is not a Scriptural quote. It is an example garnered from the Temptation accounts of Jesus in the wilderness and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. The actual quotation is from “the Merchant of Venice” Act I, Scene III ANTONIO Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart: O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath! November 4, 1:16 pm | [comment link]

12. John Wilkins wrote: Scripture evinces that the devil does, in fact quote scripture, which tends to destabilize our own personal authority when it comes to quote it.  All we have is to offer each other charity.  I tend to think that the Eucharist is where we first experience that charity, and to police it due to a sense of sexual pollution underminds that virtue.  Perhaps God’s word is less about correct quotes from scripture, but something about knowing the power of God’s amazing love in his creation. November 5, 2:31 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.