PROGRESSIVE
EPISCOPALIANS OF PITTSBURGH
Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Pittsburgh Action Called Divisive
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — July 2, 2006 — Progressive Episcopalians of
Pittsburgh (PEP) has characterized the resolutions passed by the Standing
Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh on June 28 and the standing committees
of five other dioceses as a divisive media event. The resolutions request
“alternative Primatial oversight” (APO) from the Anglican Communion. The Pittsburgh statement also claims to be withdrawing the diocese from Province III, one of
nine groupings of dioceses provided for by the canon law of The Episcopal
Church. The requests for APO, first from the Diocese of Fort Worth, which
issued its statement before the close of The Episcopal Church’s triennial
General Convention (June 13–21), and then, nearly simultaneously this past week,
from Pittsburgh, South Carolina, San Joaquin, Central Florida, and Springfield,
suggest that the requests are part of a coordinated strategy planned long
before the church’s meeting in Columbus.
Statements made before the General Convention of The Episcopal Church by
Network Moderator, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, and other
traditionalists set such a rigid standard that they ensured that The Episcopal
Church would fail to satisfy the traditionalists. Whereas the Archbishop of
Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, an “advisory and consultative body,” can be
asked by the Archbishop to “enquire into, consider and report” on situations
involving “dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities,” the dioceses
requesting APO and other Network dioceses are in dispute with virtually the
whole of The Episcopal Church, not simply with its primate. Although the
Pittsburgh Standing Committee used a recent reflection by Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams as support for its action, other Archbishops in the
worldwide Anglican Communion have read the statement quite differently, with those
of New Zealand even characterizing responses like Bishop Duncan’s as “a
misrepresentation of his [Williams’] address.”
“This request is divisive, yet without substance,” said PEP President Joan R.
Gundersen, “since our primate, the Presiding Bishop, has virtually no power and
exercises no “oversight” over dioceses and their bishops. It is an attempt to
create a media event, without regard to the genuine harm this does to parishes
in the diocese, to The Episcopal Church, and to the Anglican Communion.” It represents a premature judgment of
our Presiding Bishop-elect, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, of Nevada. The move by the Standing Committee has brought distress to Episcopalians committed
to The Episcopal Church, as parishioners fear the organizational estrangement
being sought by their bishop. It stirs up division and anxiety in the many
parishes that are divided in their response to the recent church controversies
and to the course of action being pursued by Bishop Duncan.
The alleged withdrawal of the diocese from Province III is even more
disingenuous. Not only does the diocese already have little involvement in
provincial affairs, but the Bishop of Pittsburgh well knows that the creation
of provinces and the assignment of dioceses to provinces can only be done by
canon of the General Convention. It would not be unprecedented for a diocese to
ignore its province, but neither the Standing Committee nor the Convention of
the diocese can remove the diocese from Province III; only General Convention
can do that, and not before 2009. Creating a tenth province, as suggested by
the resolution, likewise, can only be accomplished by General Convention. “A province of Network dioceses would be a pastoral disaster,” Gundersen suggested. “At
least 13 parishes in this diocese have declined to be part of the Network and
declared a commitment to The Episcopal Church. Despite assurances from the
Standing Committee, these parishes, and similar parishes in other dioceses,
either will be abandoned or forced into a being part of the Network against
their will.”
The system of provinces that is now part of the organization of The Episcopal
Church is less than a century old. One reason such a feature was discussed for
many decades without being implemented was the concern that creating provinces
might encourage the development of churches within the church. “The Network has
often talked about creating an ‘orthodox’ church within the church,” explained
Gundersen, “but the nineteenth-century arguments against dividing the church
still apply today. The requests for oversight and withdrawal to a separatist
province fly in the face of traditional Anglican willingness to worship
together while allowing a broad spectrum of interpretations of Scripture and
belief. It is a radical betrayal of the central traditions on which the
Anglican Communion is built.”
Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com