ENS: Executive Council promises support, money to continuing Episcopalians

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Episcopal Church's Executive Council October 23 renewed its ongoing support of dioceses in which the leadership has left or plans to leave the church, and pledged the church to seek reconciliation "without precondition on our part."

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told council members that she appreciated their sense that irreconcilable differences are inconsistent with the gospel. "It is profoundly unchristian and unhopeful to say that differences can be irreconcilable," she said.

House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson echoed that sentiment during a post-meeting news conference, noting that the remaining members of the Diocese of San Joaquin "have done some very, very hard work … in reconciliation in trying to draw in people who were, shall we say, on the fence." Executive Council said October 23 that "it stands ready to help," Anderson added.

During the closing sessions of its four-day meeting in Helena, the seat of the Diocese of Montana, the council passed four resolutions that speak to various aspects of its commitment to the new leadership of the dioceses of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, as well as to other "similarly situated dioceses."

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • TEC Conflicts • TEC Conflicts: Fort Worth • TEC Conflicts: Pittsburgh • TEC Conflicts: San Joaquin

8 Comments
Posted October 30, 2008 at 4:25 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. robroy wrote:

I am pretty sure the monies spent propping up the rump San Joaquin was not part of the $2 million spent last year. Nor is the monies that will be spent on more “propping up” which will be much higher in 2008 be part of the budgeted amount (which was a laughable $700,000).

And of course the money spent by 815 is probably dwarfed by the dioceses, e.g., Connecticut paying for staff and salaries of Trinity Episcopal, rental of space in a Lutheran Church, and upkeep on the empty building which the rump congregation is too small to justify reopening. As a small businessman, I know that the salaries and benefits of just a few employees quickly adds up. The diocese of Virginia is now paying for lots of employees of micro-rump-churches.

October 30, 7:41 am | [comment link]
2. jeff marx wrote:

It is unchristian to admit that there are irreconcialable differences but there is no problem spending TWO MILLION in hard cash for law suits? Depose and sue, but claim that reconciliation is the goal!
I really cannot follow the “logic” of the Presiding Bishop.

October 30, 8:18 am | [comment link]
3. Byzantine wrote:

#2

The logic is this:  property can be sold or leveraged for cash; people cannot.  TEC is more concerned with property than people at this point.

October 30, 9:05 am | [comment link]
4. Sherri2 wrote:

I’m a bit baffled by the claim that reconciliation is always possible, coming from a person who has made no visible efforts toward reconciliation. I wonder where we would be now if she had tried a conciliatory approach instead of a legal one.

October 30, 9:34 am | [comment link]
5. Randy Muller wrote:

It is profoundly unchristian and unhopeful for a bishop and ECUSA to sue priests, members of the vestry and members of a congregation.

This is the opposite of reconciliation.

It’s good that the Executive Council has pledged the church to seek reconciliation, because filing lawsuits is not reconciliation, and it even forecloses on the possibility of reconciliation.  Let’s see if they follow through.

October 30, 10:02 am | [comment link]
6. Pb wrote:

Reconciliation can only come by capitulation - the natural result of listening to KJS long enough to give up one’s beliefs. It is apparently to Christian thing to do. This is the same mantra we have heard for a long time.

October 30, 11:26 am | [comment link]
7. Cennydd wrote:

#2   Her logic is illogical.

October 30, 11:34 am | [comment link]
8. fatherscott wrote:

Isn’t the presiding bishop telling all those in the Church who divorced because of “irreconcilable differences” that they are “profoundly unchristian?”

October 30, 3:34 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): AP: Churches are looking at hard times

Previous entry (below): Terry Mattingly: Interfaith coalition misunderstood by most journalists

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)