Pennsylvania Episcopal Congregation may get new bishop

[davidinalameda]

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2005041312/

An Episcopal church is expected to be the first liberal congregation in the country to get a new bishop under a rule change intended to help conservative parishes opt for new leadership.

St. Brendan's Episcopal Church has been at odds with the leadership of the Pittsburgh diocese, which is headed by an outspoken opponent of gay ordination.

Under a tentative agreement, the Rev. William Michie Klusmeyer, Episcopal bishop of West Virginia, would provide oversight at St. Brendan's, said Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman Peter Frank. Frank could not say when oversight might begin.



glad to see this working both ways

[BOHICA06]

1. Both ways???

Name one conservative Episcopal Congregation that has received oversight from an Orthodox ECUSA bishop from outside its diocese? It is a one-way street - revisionists get ECUSA oversight - orthodox have to leave the Church. Let's see what happens in Connecticut.

[kwassa]

4. Why do you call them "revisionists"? And "orthodox"?

Neither are Episcopal terms.

[BOHICA06]

6. The Revisionist seek to revise ...

the ECUSA canons & the Orthodox seek to retain the current canons ...

[kwassa]

7. such languaging is not helpful

it doesn't truthfully reflect the positions of the two sides. There is no orthodoxy in the Episcopal faith.

Progressive vs. traditionalist is a better comparison.

here is more on the issue of diocesan boundries:

http://www.dioala.org/
from:
16-March-2005 - House of Bishops adopts 'Covenant Statement' - USA
From the Episcopal News Service (ECUSA)

House of Bishops' Spring Meeting Camp Allen, Texas 15 March, 2005

(jump)

"4. We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity."

The big issue is, of course, American congregations attempting to align themselves with foreign bishops, which is completely illegal and unrecognized. The violation of diocesan boundries is a big issue, though there appears to be some flexibility to the situation within the US.

[BOHICA06]

8. Not "helpful" ...

what am I suppose to help?

And marginalizing my answer is way to divert from the issue - that there are two camps pulling at the ECUSA and those of us in the Church will have to decided which gets our time, talent, and treasure after the schism.

Orthodox & Revisionist perfectly defines the two sides.

[kwassa]

9. and which side are you on?

I am not marginalizing your answer, I find the "revisionist" tag perjorative, whether or not you intend it to be. I sit squarely in the camp you would call revisionist, and I regard as progressive.

I'm not sure there will be a schism, it is certainly not a done deal by a long shot.

And I don't think you've said much about the issues in ECUSA, yet. What issues are important to you in this debate?

[BOHICA06]

10. I'm the guy ...

that after the revisionists have thrown their snit and the orthodox have done off in a huff has to choose which Coffee Hour is better!!

Do I like +VGR - No. I think he attained his miter immorally by dishonoring his sacred vows to his wife and his Church. Do I expect clergy to come in all the colors of the rainbow - you bet! Do I think the mantra of "The Spirit is doing a new thing" good - no I don't. It discards the Law and the Prophets that hang on the Great Commission.

I'm just a guy in a pew & a verger every other Sunday!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Have you ever met Robinson? Have you ever heard him speak?

I have, and I can understand why the people of New Hampshire chose him as their bishop. (He was not imposed on them--they chose him enthusiastically.) He's an excellent preacher and a kindly presence (and no, he did not preach on sexuality, but -surprise, surprise-- on the Gospel for the day.)

I have to wonder if you would be so up in arms if he had left his wife for another woman.

The whole anti-gay brouhaha is highly hypocritical, since even I as a straight woman can see that there have been closeted gay priests and even bishops, since time immemorial, many of them superb priests in every respect.

You speak of the Law and the Prophets that hang on the Great Commission. I recall Jesus referring to the two "great commandments" on on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. What were they? Oh, yes, "Love God and love your neighbor."

The prohibitions on homosexuality are based on a passage in Leviticus, which is in the context of prohibitions that no one, not even orthodox Jews, observes any more, and a passage in Paul--who also says elsewhere that "women should keep silent in church," which is the historical reason that European churches traditionally had boys instead of women singing soprano in their choirs.

So I'm violating one of Paul's prohibitions, too, by singing in my cathedral choir.

The best scientific evidence is that homosexuality is either inborn or develops so early that the person is unconscious of it. In other words, these aren't people who are being "perverts" for the fun of it but people for whome loving someone of the same sex is as natural as loving someone of the opposite sex is for you.

And if you say "it is a choice," I have to ask how you know another person's heart. Are you perhaps a bisexual who made such a choice?

[BOHICA06]

12. See you immediately ...

throw up the argument that will stop an Episcopalian cold - I must be a bigot. For the 8th deadly sin to is to be thought intolerant.

But I have said nothing and really care nothing about +VGR sexuality - read carefully - it was his actions that I objected to.

First - I DO think the ECUSA is too tolerant of divorce by clergy because there are not enough collars out there now. To take some off the market would be inconvenient.
Second - Despite his ability to preach - +VGR has twice vowed before God to adhere to certain standards and when he found them not to his liking he broke those vows. What make is vows as Bishop any more valid?
Third - When the Church, at General Convention, can make scriptural foundation for blessing same-sex unions then it should proceed with approval of Consecrating Bishops in same-sex relationships. It got the cart before the horse in 2003.

I expect there to be gay clergy - but I also expect all clergy to adhere to the vows they take. Yes, I would expect the revocation of orders for a Priest who leaves his wife for another woman or who lives with another woman out of wedlock.

[kwassa]

13. I can't say that I agree with your critique

What vows did you see Robinson as breaking that you see as invalidating his elevation to Bishop?

I don't expect moral perfection from my priests, as there are none of us who are not flawed in some regard. Divorce seems to be a hot button issue for you, but it is not for me in a country where 50% of the population is divorced. It is just as inevitable in the priesthood as it is in the general population.

[BOHICA06]

15. His failure to adhere to

the married or celibate standard of the Articles of Faith should (and in some diocese would) have resulted in his orders being revoked. The fault lies with both +VGR and the Bishop of New Hampshire at the time.

[kwassa]

16. a different opinion

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/anglican-liberalism.html

"In 1968, the Church of England’s Lambeth Conference voted that Anglican clergy are no longer required to agree to the denomination’s 39 articles of faith."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I called you a bigot?

No, I just gave the reasons for my position and explained why I think that the people who believe otherwise are hung up on individual Scriptural passages and losing sight of the total message of the Gospel.

By the way, the Church decided early in its history that the validity of a sacrament does not depend on the personal characteristics of the priest.

[kwassa]

2. I don't think this story is correct

this part:
"Last year, Episcopal Church USA decided to allow parishes that disagree with church leadership to choose new bishops. "

I've been following this controversy pretty closely, and it is not possible to choose alternative bishops, as far as I have heard anywhere.

[BOHICA06]

3. They can "request" ....

alternate pastoral oversight. In this case Bishop Duncan did the right thing by allowing a more liberal Bishop to assume oversight. Too bad Bishop Smith is not cut from the same cloth.

[kwassa]

5. Supplemental Episcopal pastoral care

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_22256_ENG_HTM.htm
re: the Chicago diocese bishop talking about Griswold's permission

"In a pastoral letter to the clergy and congregations of the diocese, Chicago's Bishop William Persell said he supports Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold’s proposal for “supplemental episcopal pastoral care” as a response to the Anglican Primates' call for “alternative episcopal oversight” issued following their meeting in London Oct. 15 and 16. Should congregations desire pastoral care from a bishop other than himself or Assistant Bishop Victor Scantlebury, then Bishop Persell expects they will follow canonical procedures and request his permission for the visit."


"“Our presiding bishop has responded in a spirit of collegiality, yet within a firm understanding of our polity and traditional understanding of diocesan autonomy and the role of bishops. He distinguishes between ‘alternate Episcopal oversight’ and ‘supplemental Episcopal pastoral care,’” said Bishop Persell in his Nov. 12 letter. “I agree with his assessment and the previously articulated plans for such extension of pastoral care in extraordinary circumstances as articulated by the House of Bishops in March of 2002.”

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Bishop Smith has been working very hard to offer alternative

oversight. What he's not willing to do is allow the churches to CHOOSE their oversight. They don't like the choice he's able to present them.

I've met the man, he's as mild-mannered and genuinely concerned about this issue as anyone can ask. And the vast majority of the people he serves are in complete agreement with him -- on this issue and on Gene Robinson. He's working very hard to find common ground, to keep the church talking and moving toward maintaining unity. These dissident churches want no part of it. For them, it's their way or no way. That's not a position Bishop Smith can possibly work with.

He's my bishop, and I'm quite supportive of him, and quite ashamed of these six churches.