"Being the Church is Difficult"

Looking outside of oneself. Serving someone beyond the self. Putting aside personal comfort and coming often to the cross. This is what being the church means.

It means worshipping all together without segregating by age or interest (e.g. “contemporary” or “traditional”). It means preaching the whole counsel of God, even the unpopular bits. It means fighting against homogeneity and cultivating diversity as much as possible, even if this makes people uncomfortable. It means prioritizing the values of church membership and tithing, even if it turns people off. It means being OK with the music that is played even if it’s not your favorite style. It means sticking around even when the church goes through hard times. It means building a tight-knit community but not an insular one, engaging the community and sending out members when mission calls them away. It means bearing with one another in love on matters of debate and yet not shying away from discipline. It means preaching truth and love in tension, even when the culture calls it bigotry. It means focusing on long-term healing rather than symptom-fixing medication.

None of this is easy, and none of it is comfortable. But by the grace of God and with the Holy Spirit’s help, uncomfortable church can become something we treasure.

Read it all at Brett McCracken's blog.

The New Anglicanism

The best most fruitful incoming parishioners in my neck of the woods have been evangelicals coming to Anglicanism (at least Good Shepherd’s brand of it) for the expositional teaching wedded to liturgical worship (a unique niche I think). I’ve found that many coming in from TEC are looking for a church like the one they grew up…ie. TEC sans “the gays”. And they tend to be angry that “their church” was stolen from them (not seeing how that theft was in part due to complacency and docility in the laity). That - back to the past - ethos is not what Good Shepherd is about and so many of them are disappointed when they find that we expect people to serve, to belong to a small group, to open their bibles during sermons etc. I’ve had more internal strife arising from these folks than from any other.

This comment by the rector of one former Episcopal parish in upstate New York speaks to the issue of an emerging Anglican identity that interests me as a scholar. It reflects the increased emphasis on active discipleship that tends to characterize successful congregations in a post-Christian society. It might also be said to bear comparison with the 19th century Anglo Catholic tendency to eschew the identification of the Anglican tradition with anything other than the practices of the Primitive Church.

Reading this (admittedly off-the-cuff) comment, however, I can't help wondering what it means for the next phase of Anglican development. Granted the ultimate division (in practice, if not in theory) of the Anglican Communion into two provincial federations, will that portion that seeks to resist the pressure to conform historic Christian teaching to the secular culture of the Global North ultimately retain anything that was historically considered distinctively Anglican about it? For many of those who ultimately abandoned Anglicanism across four centuries, of course, it was the precisely the desire to reconcile the irreconcilable that was at the root of their unease. Today's self- identified Anglicans appear to have solved that problem, but I wonder if there won't be an accompanying cost.

Anglicanism Future: Church of the Incarnation, Pittsburgh

Last week, I was on the stand in Quincy, Illinois, testifying to the condition of Anglicanism past; on April 13, I listened enthralled to Bishop FitzSimons Allison (a sprightly eighty-nine year old retired bishop of South Carolina) on the Scylla and Charybdis of Anglicanism present; and on April 14, I observed the state of Anglicanism future, as manifested at Pittsburgh’s Church of the Incarnation. While my focus here is on Church of the Incarnation, Bishop Allison’s remarks threw Sunday’s worship experience into sharp relief.

  

In 2011, when Trinity Cathedral withdrew from its earlier commitment to dual membership in both the TEC and ACNA dioceses, a significant section of the congregation felt unable to remain. Initially meeting as a house church, Incarnation’s founders – foremost among them, Fathers Paul Johnston and H. Lawrence “Laurie” Thompson and their wives Sharon and Mary – worked to assemble the necessary mission structures even as they searched for a suitable building for Sunday worship. Initially, the mission explored possible sites in the Johnstons’ neighborhood of Squirrel Hill and Pittsburgh’s downtown community (known as the Golden Triangle), but without success. Instead, there came an entirely unexpected offer from the owners of Bar Marco, an upscale wine bar located in a former firehouse in Pittsburgh’s Strip District. The upper level of the firehouse, then used for art exhibitions, would be available on Sundays after 3:00 PM (when Bar Marco closes for the day). To Incarnation’s leaders, it seemed an answer to a prayer.

To see this former firehouse for the first time dramatically alters one’s perspective on the nature of liturgical space. As with most missions, the weekly need to set out congregational seating and vest a table (purchased from IKEA) to serve as an altar helps emphasize the priority of the Body of Christ over the church building as sacred space set apart from the world (while there may be a spiritual downside to this, it is the nature of this community). The room itself is long and rectangular approached by two rear staircases one rising from the bar and the other from the rear kitchen. Above the congregation looms an impressive cast tin roof installed in a less utilitarian age when form mattered as much as function (even for the emergency services). At the west end (the liturgist may deplore it, but Church of the Incarnation celebrates the Eucharist at the West End) are three large glass windows looking out onto the Strip. In a reminder that worldly and sacred space intersect at Incarnation, the art on exhibition remains in place (except for one painting temporarily taken down to accommodate the Cross), but Incarnation also proudly celebrates its own individually crafted Paschal Candle (the work of Suzanne Trenney).

Incarnation is a church of artists and musicians, actors and dance professionals, and even an architect who is presently working on developing movable screens to make best use of the temporary space. Many of Father Johnston's students (he teaches music at Carnegie Mellon University) have blessed Incarnation with their professional skills (last Sunday’s worship, for example, featured a euphonium quartet) and the congregation boasts a portable keyboard – acquired by Father Johnston – with a musical character much closer to an organ than one might expect. It is also privileged to have two seminary professors – Laurie Thompson and John Macdonald of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge – and a professor emerita of English literature at Geneva College – Ann Paton – providing pastoral support. Such personnel advantages are, however, no substitute for congregational participation and in that Incarnation is well supplied, from the choral team to the altar guild and hospitality ministry. Other ministry teams are already being planned, since the possibility of burnout increases exponentially with a congregation that has no institutional footprint.

For a congregation whose average Sunday attendance has been steadily rising in the past year (more than sixty were in attendance on Sunday) the setting presents a truly different perspective on evangelism. If it is not Anglo-Catholic, neither is it the archetypical Evangelical mission. Tradition, in its broadest sense, and the confluence of spirituality and the arts both matter. The world is literally just a staircase away. The communicant approaching the altar is greeted not by stained glass windows that shield the Body of Christ from the World, but clear glass opening onto the somewhat grubby reality of an urban commercial district. That reality is also the mission field and those receiving the Sacrament also receive an emphatic reminder of the end to which the Eucharist is intended.

  
No mission – like no human being – will ever get everything right, but it’s hard to fault Incarnation on the essentials. Much remains to be done, not least the manner in which the congregation will actively relate to its secular neighbors, but to be present is to see twenty-first century Anglicanism in action. If you live in Pittsburgh, pay them a visit. I can guarantee you won’t be disappointed.

The Church of the Incarnation, Pittsburgh

Well our friends at Pittsburgh's Church of the Incarnation are up and running, having been been received at the 2012 diocesan convention as a Mission Fellowship-in-Formation. They even have a nice new website. If you're looking for something a little different from standard ACNA fare, this may be one to check out.

May they continue to prosper!

Barchester Redivivus: A Tale of A Cathedral, A Resolution and Human Frailty

Author's Note: This report is written primarily to assist members of Trinity Cathedral in working through our recent crisis. The author will entertain comments here, but gives fair warning that purely pejorative observations regarding members of Trinity - or the leadership of ACNA or TEC - will be unceremoniously deleted. While he has no control over comments at sites that may link to this post, he requests that commentators at other sites observe the same courtesy. A related thread of interest may be found here.

January 7 Update: See Lionel Deimel's response.

Introduction

On Thursday December 15, the Chapter of Pittsburgh’s Trinity Cathedral adopted a motion to reaffirm the charter of incorporation adopted in 1928 when Trinity assumed pro-cathedral status. In an announcement issued the following day, the Provost – Canon Catherine Brall – declared that the vote "effectively ends the governance provisions of the Special Resolution which was adopted by Chapter in August, 2008 and ratified by the parish in September, 2008." Just three years ago, the adoption of the Special Resolution drew considerable attention both within and beyond the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Providing some context for how it was adopted, implemented and ultimately revoked seems timely. The author of this report – a member of Chapter when the Special Resolution was first adopted – has consulted with Archbishop Robert Duncan, Bishop Kenneth Price, Canon Brall, all the current members of Chapter (though not all have chosen to respond) and former Chapter member John Campbell, who served until November 2011 and resigned from the Cathedral following repeal of the Special Resolution. A good faith effort has been made to incorporate the competing narratives surrounding recent events, yet it is an underlying premise of the report that the Special Resolution had an inherent merit and that the manner of its demise fell short of the standards to which Trinity had previously been committed.

Trinity and Realignment

To understand the context of the Special Resolution, it is necessary to go back to the original decision of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to realign in 2007 and 2008. Unlike the Dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy – where most of those who chose to remain with The Episcopal Church (TEC) are generally happy with the course pursued by the national church – the process of diocesan realignment in Pittsburgh separated a significant number of clerical conservatives (and their congregations) from the soon-to-be Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). It was in this context that, two months before the second – and final – vote on realignment, the Chapter of Trinity Cathedral debated and adopted the Special Resolution (the text of which, interestingly enough, can still be found on the cathedral website), which was subsequently ratified by the wider parish membership. Canon Brall has stated to me recently that she understands that the word "ratified" was deliberately employed so as to signify approval without any legal change in the character of the by-laws and charter of Trinity Cathedral. To my recollection this was not a fact emphasized to members of the Chapter at the time when the concept of the resolution was put forward by the Provost, formally developed by two members of the Chapter (one a lawyer and future ACNA member; the other the TEC-leaning head of the World Affairs Council) and carefully reflected upon by the whole body, of which the present author was then a member.

Put simply, the Special Resolution affirmed both the parish’s "unique historical roots" as "the first church of Anglican and Episcopal worship in Pittsburgh," and a commitment made in September 2003, when the present crisis in TEC began to take shape, "to preserve the unity of The Episcopal Church and to facilitate resolution of divisions within the body of the Church," as grounds for refusing at that time to make an "exclusive choice" between the two church bodies (TEC and the future ACNA). To that end the following commitment was made:

The people and Chapter of Trinity Cathedral commit themselves to being a Christian community, in which the love of God is manifest to all; in which the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be evidenced in our practices of self-restraint, mutual accountability, and extending respect and forbearance to those with whom we differ; and in which the fellowship of the Holy Spirit may be exemplified in our choosing to forgive rather than retaliate, to heal hurts rather than nurse grudges, and to remain together when it would be easier and less costly to go our separate ways. (Emphasis added.)

To this was added a commitment to remain a "unified Cathedral," even to the extent of being the seat of two Bishops from contending jurisdictions. To that end, provision was made for both jurisdictions to elect representatives to the Chapter and for both Bishops (if two existed) to serve as co-presidents. At the same time, the Special Resolution expressed an expectation that it would be permitted representation in the diocesan conventions of both competing bodies. Perhaps most importantly, the Special Resolution contained the following provision:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that – if circumstances necessitate the application of the principles and provisions of this Special Resolution – the By-Laws governing the parish and Chapter of Trinity Cathedral shall be amended to incorporate these same principles and provisions, and that subsequent amendment of those By-Laws to alter substantively these principles and provisions shall require concurrence by a two-thirds majority of Chapter members elected by Trinity parish and by a two-thirds majority of those parish members present at a special meeting of the parish congregation, duly convened according to the By-Laws.

It should be noted that, in the Canon Provost’s understanding, since alterations to the by-laws would have required the consent of the diocesan standing committee at a time when the Diocese of Pittsburgh was headed for division and reorganization into two separate entities, said alteration was impossible. She further notes that she did receive a communication from the TEC Standing Committee stating that they could not acknowledge the Special Resolution. This was not communicated to the Chapter, at least not in the form of a declaration of legal non-recognition.

The Reception of the Special Resolution

It should not be imagined that the Special Resolution was particularly well received at the time or subsequently, although Canon Brall did receive some expressions of appreciation from persons within and beyond the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Many observers viewed it as an abrogation of responsibility and the reflection of an inability to make hard choices. The fact that Trinity had for more than a decade been limping along financially only added to the conviction that the cathedral was seeking to have its cake and eat it. It cannot be denied that the short-term practical consequences were welcome. Nevertheless, few people in 2008 could have predicted with certainty how the two Dioceses would relate in the long-term.

Many had hoped that the relatively even balance of Episcopal and Anglican populations and the presence in the TEC Diocese of a significant body of theologically conservative clergy would promote a spirit of forbearance. The property disputes (for which ACNA must accept a measure of responsibility in choosing to pursue them) and the fact that it seems increasingly clear that conservatives in the TEC Diocese lack the numbers needed to shape such a course have changed all of this.

To reduce the perceived failure of the Special Resolution to this level, however, is in part to abrogate the cathedral’s responsibility for clarifying what the Special Resolution was about. "This Resolution shall be publicized to all lay persons and clergy within the existing Diocese of Pittsburgh and to appropriate authorities within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion," read the final clause "with a prayer that – by the grace of God – these principles will serve as a Christian model for reconciliation within divided communities." The Special Resolution was never, as many members of Chapter understood it, about drawing people to Trinity (though obviously any drawn to the congregation by the principles enunciated would have been welcome), and it was never publicly understood as promoting congregational growth, though Canon Brall states that she certainly hoped for such an outcome. To assert that the failure to grow is somehow due to the confusion provoked by the Special Resolution is, in the view of certain Chapter members at least, disingenuous; that failure is entirely separate from the purpose of the Special Resolution and long pre-dated realignment. Where the disjunction arose, at least in the view of the Resolution’s proponents, was in the parish’s failure to communicate to the wider world the principles that were so clearly enunciated in 2008. It should be acknowledged, however, that at the time it did receive coverage in the parish newsletter, the parish and diocesan (undivided) website and in press releases.

The tragedy of recent events, however, has been not that Trinity Cathedral has made the decision to align solely with the TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh, but the manner in which that decision was reached, which demonstrated neither "mutual accountability" nor "respect and forbearance." By their action, those who voted to support the December 15 motion inflicted a devastating – and quite unnecessary – blow to the community whom they – quite sincerely – believe themselves to be supporting.

2011: The Year of Decision

During the first half of 2011, members of the Chapter devoted themselves to Kevin Ford’s Transforming Church: Bringing Out the Good to Get to the Great, a book recommended by Canon Brall, as part of ongoing discussions concerning Trinity Cathedral’s long-term strategic plan. Several of those involved found it pertinent to the cathedral’s situation and the discussions around it productive. No indication was given at that time that there was any need to revise the mode of governance under the Special Resolution.

In February, however, TEC Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori proposed to attend the TEC clergy renewal of vows on April 19 (the Tuesday of Holy Week). Canon Brall states that she received representations not to host the Presiding Bishop in any capacity, but there is also discontinuity of perception in how the calendar clash with the already scheduled ACNA renewal of vows was handled. Canon Brall states that she only inquired of the ACNA diocese whether they could change their schedule, while the ACNA perspective is that an attempt was made to persuade Archbishop Duncan to relocate the ACNA service. The cathedral ultimately hosted a public forum for the Presiding Bishop on the Tuesday evening after the TEC renewal of vows in Wilkinsburg.

If the ACNA claim is accurate, given the importance accorded by the Special Resolution to serving both dioceses equally, it was at least unfortunate that the question of moving a pre-scheduled ACNA event was even raised. It should also be noted, however, that the Canon Provost made inquiries of ACNA about hosting this year's ACNA diaconal ordinations – which did not occur the previous year owing to an untypical morning wedding – but did not learn of the ACNA diocese’s rejection until she read the public announcement that they would take place at Church of the Ascension.

At the April Chapter meeting, the Canon Provost solicited feedback from members as to the qualities desired in the new TEC Bishop to be elected in 2012, which included "a reconciler," "one who accepts the Special Resolution," and "Biblical and Prayer Book perspective rather than civil law." According to the Canon Provost, the latter two suggestions came from self-identified Anglicans. At the May Chapter meeting, interim TEC Bishop Price, while declaring that he and Archbishop Duncan were working well together, noted that some in the Episcopal Diocese were wondering how a new Bishop might react to the Special Resolution. When later asked why Calvary Church had been chosen for the consecration, he responded that although logistical considerations were a factor there was also a belief in some quarters that it should take place "in a facility solely dedicated to the Episcopal Church." Apparently this elicited both "comment and concern" among some of those present. Bishop Price, it should be noted, informs me that the Chapter minutes exaggerate the importance of the latter concern and that "the relative size of the two buildings was the driving force."

At the June Chapter meeting, according to Chapter minutes, "the issue of the Cathedral’s status with both dioceses was raised." According to Mary Thompson, this came in the form of a statement from Canon Brall at the end of the meeting: "I think the Special Resolution no longer serves the best interests of the Cathedral," rapidly followed by adjournment of the meeting. The Chapter minutes summarize the Special Resolution as intended to "(1) bring people together and engender kindness between ACNA and TEC and (2) draw people to the Cathedral who didn’t want to choose between the two." Reference to the original resolution will of course demonstrate that the second was never an overt object, while the first utterly fails to convey the theological underpinning behind the Special Resolution. With such misunderstanding (at best) even on the representative body of the cathedral, it is perhaps no wonder that people were so easily persuaded to dispense with the Resolution. The assertion was also made that both dioceses were increasingly making the choice not to use the cathedral for diocesan-wide events. It was ultimately agreed that both dioceses need to be approached to find out whether, or indeed if, they viewed the cathedral as integral to their future.

At the August Chapter meeting, reports from discussions with both bishops suggested that neither viewed the status quo as defined by the Special Resolution to be viable. Archbishop Duncan has stated that his view has always been that the Special Resolution functioned well with regard to Chapter and the relationship between the two dioceses, but not as regards the congregation. From this conclusion developed his proposal for what he termed "Phase Two" of the Special Resolution: an evening congregation serving the ACNA members of the parish that would complement a morning service that might either be specifically for TEC or continue the present arrangement. Bishop Price notes that in his meeting he simply restated the fact that the Special Resolution had not helped Trinity to grow. Members of Chapter requested clarification of the statement from the TEC Diocese that the cathedral did not fit in with its mission, but also recommended that both sides be asked to clarify their view of the cathedral’s legal status and that more effective ways be defined to serve both dioceses. Consideration also began of a white paper – prepared by the Canon Provost – discussing future options for Trinity.

According to the Canon Brall’s recollection, the structural deficiencies of the first draft of the white paper in large measure reflected the fact that no one on the executive committee had followed through on its commitment to produce a white paper, forcing her to write one at short notice. While a September 15 report of the executive committee listed exclusive affiliation with ACNA as an option, the first draft of the white paper – presented at the October Chapter meeting – did not. Instead, it worried the existing good relationship with Bishop Price might not carry over to his successor if the Special Resolution endured. It argued that the Resolution had failed to be an agent of reconciliation, that working with both dioceses consumed precious time and energy, and held out the possibility of the TEC diocesan offices relocating to Trinity to provide needed rental income.

In passing, it should be noted that the white paper contained a seemingly unnecessary swipe at the "Anglicans" for moving away from the "Downtown community and the homeless" to the North Shore, despite the fact that the principal congregation of and for the homeless in the neighborhood – with whom the cathedral has worked – is an ACNA one. However, Michael Caligiuri has asked me to convey that he believes this to have arisen from a remark he made earlier that an evening ACNA service designed to attract young adults might have difficulty relating to the homeless population that Trinity continues to serve, a remark that he would also have made of a TEC service catering to a similar demographic.

The essential conservatism of the TEC Diocese was a constant refrain of the white paper, together with the dubious assurance that Trinity would remain "open and welcoming," that a Sunday ACNA evening service was an option – even without the Resolution – and that ACNA clergy could still marry their parishioners at Trinity. It is noteworthy that the Canon Provost made it clear at the November meeting of Chapter that the white paper was for Chapter review only and would not be shared with the wider congregation, an indication, perhaps, that it was not envisaged that the latter would not be involved in the decision to end the Special Resolution. (She is today not sure whether or not she envisaged that a white paper would ultimately be distributed to the congregation).

Discussion and significant amendment of the white paper continued through the fall, but with clear indications that the Chapter remained internally divided. Only at the October and November meetings was the white paper fully discussed by the whole Chapter. Following the December meeting of the executive committee, it was the impression of many members of Chapter, including two members of the executive committee, that debate on the white paper had been postponed indefinitely, that the cathedral would continue to operate under the Special Resolution for the foreseeable future, and that December’s Chapter meeting would concern itself solely with the cathedral’s Strategic Plan. In private, however, several people were pushing for a motion similar to that ultimately presented on December 15.

Walt Adkins – whose comprehensive notes on the subject have been gratefully received – offers perhaps the most useful perspective on the anti-Special Resolution position. As one who has responsibility for buildings and grounds Mr. Adkins has perhaps a more acute sense of structural atrophy than most people. In his view, it was the failure of the two Dioceses to leave their disagreements at the doors of Trinity and focus on a joint program of worship, music and service that celebrated the best of ACNA and TEC that was to blame for the failure of the Special Resolution, not a lack of communication on the part of the "small remnant" that constituted the Trinity congregation. His own observation of certain comments by ACNA members of Chapter (most notably the phrase, "sleeping with the enemy") only confirmed him in the belief that, after months of fruitless debate, "the November Chapter meeting had brought the Special Resolution to its end" and that "any serious participant of the November meeting had heard me declare the [Special Resolution] dead." Postponing its demise would simply have compounded the error.

The Chapter Meeting of December 15

Regular business was conducted in a noticeably perfunctory matter. The final item of business – entitled "white paper/strategic plan" – was announced and Canon Brall reported the executive committee’s recommendation that Chapter focus on strengthening Trinity’s role as a cathedral and address the white paper at a later date.

Even before any discussion on this recommendation could be entertained, Trinity representative Andrew Thiros requested that, since he believed that any discussion must center around the corporate charter, he be allowed to propose a motion reaffirming Trinity’s charter, which was seconded by appointed by TEC clergy representative Scott Quinn. Officially the TEC position was that the property section of the Special Resolution was not considered by TEC to be in effect. At no point did Mr. Thiros discuss the implications for the Special Resolution; that had to be articulated by others. It is the opinion of Walt Adkins that Mr. Thiros has made observations to this effect – though not in the form of a motion – on at least two previous occasions. Bishop Price concurs, noting that while he did not know the form of the motion that was presented in advance, he anticipated that something of the sort would occur after the November meeting. Despite objections from the secretary, Bette Salmon, that the motion was not on the agenda and should therefore only be discussed and voted upon at the next meeting, Canon Brall allowed it to be presented. Under questioning, Mr. Thiros maintained that adherence to the Charter superseded the Special Resolution and stated that his decision to present the motion had been made two days previously and after discussion with certain members of Chapter.

Despite the fact that the executive committee had met just 30 minutes earlier, no hint had been conveyed to at least two of its members, including the secretary. Moreover, no response was forthcoming either from Canon Brall or the chair of the executive committee (the senior warden), Dorothy Amis, as to why other members of the executive committee were kept in the dark. The Canon Provost has stated that she knew that a motion might be put forward but had no specific knowledge of the form – "I don’t know," she says, "who was involved in talking about this." A noteworthy aspect of this selective knowledge is the experience of Chapter member Bill Kaiser, who was told by the husband (not a member of Chapter) of the chair of the executive committee some days prior to the meeting that he hoped Mr. Kaiser would vote in favor of TEC, without specifying what he meant.

Not only was there no prior notice of the motion, but no copies of the motion (or of the Special Resolution and the relevant sections of the charter) were distributed at any stage of the proceedings. Executive committee member Wicks Stephens, like Mr. Thiros an attorney, who also received no advance warning of the motion, warned that the intent of the motion was to end the Special Resolution and he considered the manner of its introduction to be underhanded. Following discussion, Mr. Stephens made a motion to table the reaffirmation of the charter, which failed. According to Michael Caligiuri, however, this motion was to table until April, "an impossibly long time frame to have this motion hanging over us" (on this point, the author doesn't necessarily disagree).

So bad had the atmosphere become that ACNA clergy representative John Cruikshank (who has close family ties to Trinity) then introduced a motion of no confidence in the Canon Provost, which was conducted with the latter still in the chair. The Canon Provost states that she appealed to Bishop Price as to how to proceed, and he responded that she should simply entertain a voice vote. While the motion was subsequently reported to have failed, some of those present are of the opinion that it sounded equal. By the same token, no one requested that a written ballot be taken, which any Chapter member was certainly free to do.

Debate lasted from approximately 5:50 PM until 7:25 PM, and from 6:00 PM onwards the burden of the debate appears to have been borne by the supporters of Special Resolution, including Mary Thompson, a member of the cathedral congregation, whose husband Laurie has been assisting clergy at Trinity. Both are ACNA supporters who agreed to work with the Special Resolution somewhat against their better judgment at first and, in so doing, discovered something of value. They were and are especially disturbed to see the theological principles underpinning the Special Resolution being sacrificed to expediency. Furthermore, in the opinion of Sharon Johnston at least, "questions of legality, procedure or appropriate professionalism were not sufficiently addressed," with the mood of the majority being more along the lines of "let’s put this to bed."

Two members of Chapter – Ed Murry and Michael Caligiuri – did raise the practical necessity of TEC affiliation to Trinity’s identity, while a third, Walt Adkins, expressed concern about the "divisive language" being used by opponents of the motion, but for the most part, at least as far as certain observers were concerned, supporters of the motion sat in silence. Mr. Caligiuri has subsequently communicated to me his own rationale for the, in his words, painful decision to vote in the affirmative which I quote as follows:

Jesus calls us to serve people, not dioceses, and I believe that the Special Resolution was making it progressively more difficult to do that . . . I knew this was an unsustainable situation when Archbishop Duncan told the Executive Committee that he was asking Anglicans ready to leave the cathedral to stay. When someone needs to be asked to stay, there's definitely a problem. If, as time progresses, it's clear to me that being a cathedral interferes with our ability to serve the people, I'll vote then to stop being a cathedral. I believe our calling to serve the least of our brothers is far greater than to serve Bishops and Archbishops.

Finally, and only after she had asked how leaders willing to act in such a fashion could be trusted in the future, Bette Salmon finally called the question, recognizing that debate could not continue indefinitely. The motion to reaffirm the charter of Trinity Cathedral was put and passed by 11 votes to 7 (Canon Brall notes that it actually should have been recorded as 12-7, since Bishop Price voted in favor and has the right to exercise a vote under the charter). No reason was given at the time for why the vote should not be two-thirds (in accordance with the Special Resolution) rather than a simple majority, although as reported above the TEC position is that Special Resolution carried no binding legal authority. Unusually, since there are frequent absences by non-congregational representatives on both sides, all the TEC members of the Chapter were present while three from ACNA – Archbishop Duncan, Donald Bushyager and William Lytle – were not. In a final irony, the listed agenda item was never discussed.

Bishop Price insists that he had had no advance notice of the vote (and the Canon Provost confirmed that she had not alerted either Bishop to what was planned, in itself a remarkable admission) and noted that he delayed offering an opinion in the hope that Archbishop Duncan – who was delayed – would ultimately make it to the meeting. Several observers maintain, however, that in the course of his remarks he shifted from conciliatory language about the need for the dioceses to work together to one of stating that the Special Resolution had been "accepted but not approved" by the TEC diocesan standing committee, that he was the "only ecclesiastical authority" present and that it was his responsibility to "enforce" the charter. According to one witness, he also declared the Special Resolution to be "illegal." For the last three years, of course, he and his Diocese have been complicit in the illegality, by accepting a half-assessment and electing representatives in accordance with the Special Resolution, although Bishop Price argues that such actions were courtesies, in the latter case observed by Diocesan Convention at his request, and not an act of complicity.

Conclusion

While the long-term implications of the December 15 Chapter meeting remain to be seen, it is plain from this account that the Canon Provost’s letter of December 16 is an inadequate summary of what occurred. While the decision may not have been made "lightly" it was certainly made "hastily," and may well have been of dubious legality (the fact that the secretary had no advance notice is a matter of note). Furthermore, the Chapter had indeed achieved a "consensus," namely to put off a decision on the final status of the cathedral in favor of working on the congregation’s strategic goals.

In a recent communication, John Campbell writes as follows:

When I was newly elected to the Cathedral Chapter, Canon Brall sat me down in her office and we reviewed a document she had prepared outlining her expectations for Chapter members. One of the items that she felt was essential to Chapter participation was the ability to reach a consensus. She remarked that the contentious years prior to her tenure were marked by battles between factions resulting in winners and losers, and that she sought to end that behavior through a process of consensus building around the issues at hand. Throughout my time on Chapter, this model was successful. I cannot remember any Chapter vote in which there was more than one or two negative votes or abstentions. Indeed, the process of the composition and approval of the Special Resolution was in itself an ideal model of consensus building.

As Mr. Campbell remarks later, "the Special Resolution was working about as well as it could be expected to." It would never be perfect nor could we expect either or both dioceses always to work with it as we wished; rather it might grow and change and the option to repeal was always there if that was the overwhelming desire of those involved. Furthermore, there was a clear impression – verbally, if not in writing – given in 2008 that this was not for the Chapter alone but for the congregation to decide. The failure to keep that intent uppermost is alarming.

In the final analysis, certain members of Trinity’s leadership decided to return to the political methods that were in vogue before Canon Brall took charge of the cathedral, pushing through a decision by stealth which could easily have been obtained simply by following the provisions of the Special Resolution in securing its termination. As it is, the congregation has now been deprived of the right to decide for itself with which body to affiliate – or indeed whether to continue with the Special Resolution – a right accorded every other congregation in 2008. More importantly, the Chapter has now set a precedent for how business will be conducted in the future. There has been remarkably little effort made since the vote by those who voted for the measure to provide pastoral care for those whom they must have known would be hurt by the decision. Indeed there seems to be a total inability to understand what was wrong not with the choice but with the process by which the choice was made.

The tragedy here is not that the Anglican Church in America lost a cathedral, but that the cathedral family lost its very raison d’être.

Romeward Bound

On Wednesday, it was reported that the vestry of our former parish of Mount Calvary, Baltimore has voted to follow All Saints Sisters of the Poor into the Roman Catholic Church, under the auspices of Benedict XVI's Anglicanorum Coetibus. This vote is to be confirmed in an all-parish meeting on October 24.

This was the parish from which my wife and I were married in 2004, a small, spiky (in the Anglo Catholic sense) congregation, with pronounced Romeward leanings and very warm hearts. In the Nineteenth Century, its ritualism earned it a reputation for defiance of episcopal authority, but it retained considerable freedom of action within the Diocese of Maryland, not least, I suspect, because its sizable endowment generated a significant slice of diocesan income.

While I am in one sense happy for them if it brings peace, I find the news revives all the uncertainty that Anglicanorum Coetibus inspired in me when it was first announced, all the more so because the Diocese of Maryland has apparently signified a willingness to negotiate a settlement. That in itself is striking, given the way in which the Presiding Bishop warned the Diocese of Virginia off settling with the CANA churches, but of course Mount Calvary has considerable resources and it won't be setting up an alternative Anglican hierarchy.

At a deeper level, though, is it wise to depart not just as a community, but as an organized parish, complete with all accouterments? As I understand it, Pope Benedict is not inclined to establish an Anglican Rite, merely a more developed form of Anglican Use. Basically, it is a recognition of the value of certain liturgical forms and in no way undermines Leo XIII's declaration in Apostolicae Curae as to the invalid character of Anglican Orders. By departing in this manner - as opposed to accepting ordinariate status as a community of souls - the impact of the change is blunted. What guarantee is there that Mount Calvary will be any less of an enclave after the transition than before, a place to which Anglican converts to Rome can resort to sustain their former identity? Of course, if an Anglican Rite were to be accepted by Rome on the same terms as the Uniate and Oriental Catholic churches this might not matter so much. If it is not, surely it would be far better to accept the costs that come with sacrifice (and which earlier generations of Anglican converts have been obliged to bear).

All that said, we wish them well!

October 25 Update:

Mount Calvary voted on two resolutions today at a special meeting following 10:00 Mass:

1) That Mt. Calvary Church separate itself from The Episcopal Church, and

2) That Mt. Calvary Church seek admission to the Roman Catholic Church as an Anglican Use parish.

Both resolutions passed by majorities of almost 85%.

The ballots were counted by two disinterested outsiders: Dr. Daniel Page (a friend of many parishioners who lives nearby) and Sister Mary Joan of the All Saints' Sisters of the Poor.

The ballots were counted in the presence of the Rev. Scott Slater, Canon to the Ordinary of the Diocese of Maryland.

Source: Stand Firm

Another Year, Another Chrism Mass

A year ago, I reported on the "Last Chrism Mass" in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Of course, it was not exactly the last. This year, Trinity Cathedral - again in the spirit of our resolution - is hosting two Chrism Masses, one for the continuing Episcopal Diocese (today) and one for the realigned Episcopal Diocese (tomorrow).

Since I teach a class at Duquesne University on Tuesday mornings, I am not able to be present tomorrow, but I put in an appearance today. As near as I could judge there were around 35 priests and Bishop Robert Johnson in attendance. To my surprise, the laity present (all three of us) were invited to present the clergy to the bishop, prior to the renewal of vows, a pleasing touch in my humble opinion. (It's a nice point whether I actually should have have been doing the presenting, since I'm not yet clear to which body I belong, but then nor does anyone else at Trinity, so I figure it's excusable).

Bishop Johnson preached an irreproachable sermon, alluding to those presbyters from whom members of this body were now sadly separated. When he went on to talk of rebuilding the diocese (which obviously has to be done) I did feel he went a little over the top in making a comparison with St. Francis, but perhaps he merely meant to emphasize the magnitude of the task ahead. He spoke of the feelings of wonderment that most must feel at being a priest in this place at this time (he did not anticipate being in Pittsburgh a year ago, he admitted) and urged the clergy not to forget their calling in the passing anguish of the moment.

Among those present were many of the communion conservative clergy (some of whom I know personally and others by repute) to whom I feel theologically closest. It is nonsense, at least in this place, to see only sheep in one jurisdiction and goats in another. While I can often appreciate the logic of the federal conservative arguments, this doesn't translate for me into a belief that only in ACNA can one be faithful. At today's Mass there were present those who have experienced the agony of Gethsemane every day since realignment. May it be that those at tomorrow's gathering will be equally appreciative of what has been lost as well as what has been gained.

Becoming Icons: Trinity Cathedral’s Search for Graced Space

Today, members of the chapter of Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh, met for their annual retreat, seeking to discern the new fields of mission to which their Lord was calling them. No great novelty, except for the fact that attendees included elected representatives of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America and – seated next to one another – Bishop Robert Duncan of the Province of the Southern Cone and Assisting Bishop Robert Johnson of the Episcopal Church. Back in June, when we first passed our now infamous resolution pledging continued participation in both prospective Anglican entities, few would have imagined such a gathering, yet here, in the shadow of renewed legal rumblings in Pittsburgh, Trinity Cathedral continues her mission as mother to, as Bishop Duncan put it, “two children it both wants to prosper.”

For those outside Pittsburgh, our story may require elaboration. In the last decade we have lived a precarious existence, groping for identity as our congregation hemorrhaged members and maintenance costs steadily increased. Fewer and fewer people have been willing to navigate the confusing byways of Pittsburgh’s business district to join us in worship, while the pastoral needs of the local homeless population have taken their toll on the small body of parishioners with time to contribute to outreach. Maintenance-to-mission may have been the slogan of the Duncan episcopate, but it is been hard to get beyond maintenance when one has a structure of our size with which to contend. Now, as the recession slashes our endowment to the edge of fiscal viability, we are obliged to contemplate a dramatic change in vision.

In this context, it is excusable for outsiders to read our resolution as simply an effort to remain a viable congregation, while staying out of the present legal fray. Such is not out intent. Composed as we are of a blend of institutional liberals and moderates, communion conservatives and a few federal conservatives, we recognize that our resolution can be effective only with a degree of self-discipline. We are not Laodiceans. Our vision – “To Be a Missionary Cathedral Building Up a Missionary People of God” – embodies a commitment to the continued need for relationship between those recently parted by realignment. Both new ecclesiastical entities contain within them the DNA of the former Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Looking toward the future, we must still account for our past. The commitments to “to forgive rather than retaliate” and “to heal hurts rather than nurse grudges” are not legalistic boilerplate, but an attempt to live into the ambiguities of our recent division.

We emerged from our retreat with the belief that we have the potential to promote our vision, even if the prevailing climate would have us act otherwise. Meditating on Ephesians 2: 11-22, we came to fresh understanding of the reconciling work of Christ on the Cross. We saw once more the ability of Jesus to lessen the pain even of the hurts that have recently been inflicted and endured in this part of Pennsylvania. Again and again, we heard from representatives of the realigned and reorganized dioceses, talk of what could still be shared, of ways in which we might still be in relationship with one another.

Our first acknowledged task is to define our identity as a congregation, for we have a need to grow and be fruitful and without vision we most definitely will perish. We have to learn to suit our very limited resources to what is achievable, to use the spiritual gifts of our congregation to best advantage, and to identify those constituencies whom we are best placed to serve. All of this is, of course, the standard work of parish profiling, yet beyond those fundamentals lies a deeper and more challenging objective: to model Christ in such a fashion that non-Anglican Pittsburghers will no longer think of us as the denomination that’s always in legal battles and that the Anglican community will have cause to downplay the adversarial nature of the conflict.

For some – perhaps for many – what we are seeking to do may seem at best fruitless and at worst harmful, and yet there is no other congregation with the institutional history to attempt it. We are the mother church that John Henry Hopkins fostered and from which Alfred Arundel sought to project a vision of pastoral care to those who would never have considered becoming Episcopalians. We have fought with bishops and with each other and yet have endured though the many twists and turns of Anglicanism in Pittsburgh. In 2008, the cleaning of our exterior as part of the diocesan anniversary celebration saw Trinity Cathedral emerge from the blackened deposits that had accumulated in the course of a century of industrial development, to reveal the almost golden sheen that it enjoyed at its erection. As an icon for our soon-to-be-released diocesan history – “Called Out of Darkness Into Marvelous Light – it reflects the hopes of those who seek a deeper reconciliation than a mere equitable division of assets (not that this would necessarily be a bad thing). Ultimately, however, we seek only to live out the vision to which we believe we have been called, always aware that “Our Help is in the Name of the Lord, who Hath made Heaven and Earth.”

The Last Chrism Mass

This is a time of “lasts” for the Diocese of Pittsburgh: the last Christmas celebration; the last Lent; the last Holy Week; the last Trinity Sunday. That mixture of sober realism and nostalgia was visibly on display at today’s Chrism Mass, where the Bishop of Pittsburgh took for his text the third verse of Psalm Eleven: “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

In Pittsburgh, we have all had occasion to watch Bob Duncan over the past few years; at Trinity Cathedral we see him more than most. While his offices are next door, from time to time one will encounter a perambulating bishop wandering the corridors of the parish house, lost in thought. It is hard, though, to imagine the full impact of those years of struggle when, as the psalmist declares “the wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the shadows at the upright in heart.”

The poignancy of that moment in the service when the Bishop joined his clergy in reaffirming the promises that he made at ordination was all the more striking when one considers last week’s decision in the House of Bishops. At such a moment, it seemed peculiarly ironic that a denomination cannot distinguish between termination of the right to function in an ordained capacity within a particular national church (which all parties would seem to acknowledge as legitimate) and the declaration that a priest or bishop no longer holds valid orders for the exercise of ministry within the Anglican tradition (which, at the least, would seem to demand a trial with the same degree of rigor as that accorded Walter Righter thirteen years ago).

For all that, the homily was a much more pastoral offering that we have tended to hear from Bob Duncan in recent years, with but a single personal allusion. All the care poured into this sermon was for the priests and deacons who have borne the heat and strife of the day, those who, in the words of the assigned Epistle (2 Corinthians 4:1-12), do not lose heart since they have their ministry through God’s mercy. And perhaps it is not just “loyal” presbyters who need the assurance that “though hard pressed on every side, they will not be crushed; though perplexed, not in despair; though persecuted, not abandoned; though struck down, not destroyed,” but also the Pittsburgh Twelve and even those who stand apart from that cause to which a majority of Pittsburgh’s Episcopalians have dedicated themselves.

In the final analysis, Bishop Duncan stated, a priest’s calling is that declared by the Apostle Paul: “We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (v.2) By the end of the year these clergy will no longer be able to gather as one and fellowship, perhaps even friendships, will be ended. Yet if secrecy, deception and distortion are eschewed and the truth is plainly set forth, then perhaps there can be victory even in defeat. Since we are all representative of fallen humanity, naturally this may be easier said than done

At several points in his sermon, the Bishop drew attention to the last days of St. Augustine in a Carthage then under siege by the Vandals. Within a short space of Augustine’s death, he remarked, the great North African Church had ceased to exist. Sitting amid the columns of Trinity Cathedral, itself testament to the rise and fall of institutional Anglicanism in North America, one wondered if another final epitaph was being pronounced.

The Heavenly Orchestra

Sermon Preached by Paul Johnston

in Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh, January 27, 2008.

Once upon a time, there was a symphony orchestra. You could hardly call it that at first. It was smaller—maybe a chamber orchestra. Really, it was only a small, rag-tag bunch. But there came to them an inspired and inspiring conductor. They called him “maestro.”

With the maestro on the podium, the players played better than they thought possible. They gave the maestro their 110%. Not only did they grow as individual musicians. They came together as a remarkable ensemble, as if of one mind.

They’d come home from rehearsal and tell their families, “This is a concert you won’t want to miss.” They’d invite their friends. Their friends then told their friends, and soon the players had friends’ friends inviting their friends.

Word spread. The audience and critics, hearing the symphony orchestra under the maestro, would hear the music and find reality illuminated and clarified, and yet in the music there would also be promises for the future. There would be answers—even to questions they hadn’t asked yet.

The symphony’s fame grew. The roster grew. They built their own concert hall, so now they no longer had to rent the high school gym. But in no time, they’d outgrown the first hall and had to build a second. Then they built their third—and by all accounts the most beautiful—concert hall, a jewel on prime real estate downtown.

But slowly, you could sense other changes. Players came and went. Some were genuine superstars on their instruments. During coffee breaks at rehearsals, or long after getting off work, they had conversations about fascinating and often significant issues.

A violinist would ask, “Which edition of this music is more reliable?” A violist might reply, “Does it really matter? Can’t we just look to the conductor?” Another would say, “Well, maybe we need to revise our idea of who the conductor is.” One ventured, “Calling him maestro seems oppressive.”

There were endless discussions about the second movement of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony. The tempo indicated in the score is that quarter notes should be at 76 beats per minute. One party of musicians believed they should respect the composer’s intentions, as apparently he wrote them. But some believed that to be too fast. “It’s unmusical if you do exactly what the score says,” they argued. Some of their colleagues speculated that Beethoven’s metronome was malfunctioning at the time he wrote this work.

The symphony orchestra built a conservatory, where the players kept busy teaching and arguing for their interpretations. This left them less time to practice, of course. Rehearsals became more perfunctory.

If you had half an ear, you could detect problems. The players weren’t together on entrances. They didn’t cut off together on downbeats. The third trumpet was always a little flat, compared with the rest of the orchestra, but no one cared enough to correct him except the conductor, who the players no longer heard.

They got the notes, mostly. But something was missing. So, the audience slowly dwindled. A couple of empty seats here, one or two over there. Then a whole row. It was so imperceptible at first, no one saw what was happening until at last they were in serious trouble.

The orchestra tried different marketing strategies. There was Dietrich Buxtehude Bobble-head Night. It was fun, but didn’t change attendance patterns.

They remodeled the concert hall. No improvement in attendance.

They brought in a consultant. He said, “You can remodel all you want. But your content is irrelevant.”

So they added a drum set and electric bass to their renditions of Mozart. They even put out a record called “Hooked on Mozart.” However, when disco went out of style a couple of years later, they found themselves still in trouble.

It got so bad that, while they agreed to agree on essentials and disagree on inessentials, they couldn’t agree on what the essentials were anymore!

There were partisan fans. When Apollos the horn player would have a solo, his loyal followers would cheer, but the followers of Cephas the bassoonist would boo and hiss. When the oboist Bob had the most prominent, most risky, solo of his career, his fans whistled and thumped their chests, but the flutist Kathryn’s fans tried to kick him out of the orchestra.

There was even disagreement over who the concert hall belonged to.

Occasionally you’d hear a lone voice: “It’ll turn out all right if you follow the conductor.” But someone always replied, “Yeah, but what does that mean?” Or, “Easy for you to say.” Or, “I don’t look for a conductor anymore. I’ve grown past that. But a conductor is a meaningful metaphor for the beat within me.”

To anybody who loved music, however, the orchestra was an orchestra in name only. It didn’t perform with one mind.
___________

Listen to what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians. This is the first verse of this morning’s Epistle (in my dynamic paraphrase from the Greek original): “I passionately urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all be on the same page, not torn apart in schism, but mended in your ways, the cracks repaired, being of one mind and one aim.”

Paul had a lot to say to the Corinthians about unity. The Corinthian church was in fact quite a mess. And in a broader context, Jesus had a lot to say about unity, too. From the New Testament, here’s one thing unity isn’t, and one thing it is:

Going by what Jesus and Paul say, unity isn’t simply getting along. It’s not tolerance. The notion of tolerance is indeed quite foreign to the New Testament. If you were to wear one of those “Teach Tolerance” buttons to an interview with St. Paul, he’d probably shake his head and say, “Tolerance? Your standard is too low!” Can you imagine a Church where everyone merely tolerated each other? Can you imagine a world where the best we could do would be to tolerate each other?

Instead, as Paul builds his argument in his first Corinthian letter, by Chapter 13 he proposes that the greatest spiritual gift is love. And Paul consistently defines love in Jesus’ manner as being every bit as concerned for another’s good and salvation as you are for your own. This isn’t easy, and it takes humility and discernment. But it is the ideal of love.

In other words, unity is not neutral. This unified Body—which Christ calls his Church—he once said will triumph over “the gates of hell.” That’s not neutral language. If you read this morning’s Epistle and keep going a few verses, Paul speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven and those who relate to it either wisely or foolishly. That’s not neutral. So, unity isn’t about taking no stand, making no choices, and sometimes it even rules out agreeing to disagree. Unity is not just tolerating each other.

Unity is something radical. Rather than playing it safe, Christian unity is dangerous. Our Epistle speaks of the power of the Cross as an instrument of unity—surpassing Baptism, in fact. Unity as Paul urges it in I Corinthians comes from a Cross-centered love which dares to discipline and has the power to transform lives.

How do we achieve this radical New Testament unity? Our Gospel has the answer: Jesus invites us, “Come, follow me.” If we follow him all the way to the Cross, we’ll be of one mind and purpose.

Does this seem naïve? Isn’t much of the Church’s debate over exactly what following Jesus looks like?

Yes. And yet, Jesus is the one whose overarching invitation to the kingdom was always personal, “Come, follow me”—who said the way to Father is “by me.” Since it’s his idea, he can make it work.

To achieve the radical, real unity Scripture calls for, not fake unity, which often is disunity masquerading under backslapping jollity, we must “come follow” Jesus more and more, and then trust that what needs to fall into place will fall into place.
___________

It was called a symphony orchestra. But it didn’t sound like one anymore.

One day, a new concertmaster came to the orchestra. He was kind of odd. He kept his eye on the conductor. The rest of the orchestra didn’t notice that, since they had other concerns. The principal oboe once asked the concertmaster, “Do you think it’s fair that there we have 32 violins and a minority of three oboes?” The principal flute asked, “Do you think we should take this tempo marking literally?” The concertmaster kept playing, kept looking past them, his focus on a point more distant.

One day, the principal clarinet heard a voice: “Follow me.” She looked up and saw the conductor. “Did you hear that?” she asked the assistant principal clarinet.

“Hear what?”

“I heard the conductor say, ‘Follow me.’ ”

“What!” the assistant replied, “there’s a conductor?” The piccolo player whipped around, “Does he still exist?”

The message spread through the orchestra. Others heard the voice, looked up, and started to follow. The more they did their best to follow, the more together they were. If they kept their eyes on the music and on the baton, good things happened.

Not that they didn’t have questions. Not that they didn’t have their own ideas. But they could check them with the maestro. The tuba player, whose name was Anselm, said, “Now, I do not seek to understand everything before following the conductor, but I follow the conductor in order to understand.”

The orchestra was enthusiastic about what was happening between them and the maestro. They told their families. Then they were inviting their friends. Their friends then told their friends, and soon the players had friends’ friends inviting their friends.

The audience grew. You no longer had partisan fans. When you’d hear an oboe or flute solo, you heard it as part of a coherent story. Maybe it was Romeo & Juliet, or perhaps Scheherazade. Even with the 1812 Overture, it wasn’t just a loud piece with lots of cannons. You sensed a cosmic struggle of good and evil.

The listeners felt deeply, saw visions. You’d hear the churning C-minor opening in the Symphony No. 1 of Brahms and shudder, “Woe is me!” Then that trombone chorale would enter in the finale, parting the clouds, and you knew you weren’t alone—you’d gone from darkness into light, from death into life.

All eyes were on the conductor. Everyone in the orchestra and everyone in the audience watched the master. And if your eye should wander to a player, you’d be amazed at how closely the player’s intentions reflected those of the conductor.

In the end, there were now standing ovations. There was no rush for the exits. No one wanted to leave the building. There were shouts of “Bravo! Bravo!” And of “Alleluia!”

And Jesus said to them, “Follow me…” And they left everything—liberal and conservative labels, certainty over their interpretation of canon law, uncertainty over whether the Cathedral was the property of the national church or the diocese, the way things used to be—everything, and followed him.

Published with the author's permission

The Parish Conversation Begins

Today we initiated the process which all parishes in the Diocese of Pittsburgh must undergo before diocesan convention meets forty days from now. In many respects, it was an instructive commentary on how our small parish family differs both from those parishes whose congregations are theologically coherent (either in a reappraising or a reasserting direction) and those that are focused solely on their parish life. While our clergy make no secret of the fact that they will preach and teach the "orthodox Gospel," the congregation includes ACN staff and seminarians from Trinity School for Ministry together with long-standing members who would count themselves committed to The Episcopal Church. It is debatable, however, whether it would be fair to call the latter's theology strictly "progressive;" for the most part, a Pittsburgh progressive would be viewed as a moderate or even a moderate conservative in most dioceses. And then there's the fact that, by virtue of being Trinity Cathedral, we are the bishop's church and dependent on the diocese (as currently constituted) for parochial upkeep. That we function at all is testimony to the sacrifices so many parishioners make to keep outreach and hospitality ministries afloat. For those critical of the bishop's present course it must truly be a sacrificial ministry to (for example) serve on the altar guild when Common Cause services occur, yet many of them do; in their place, I'm not certain I could do it with such grace.

Our provost discussed the amendments proposed for November regarding the accession clause to the national constitution (which include a progressive-sponsored amendment that would remove any qualification to our accession). She spoke to Trinity Cathedral's identity as a downtown church "open and accessible to all," a heavily pertinent phrase given the many homeless people to whom our clergy and laypeople minister. She emphasized that she would continue to recognize the diversity of viewpoints in the congregation but would not accept any clergy person onto her staff unwilling to uphold the "orthodox Gospel." She instanced a refusal to authorize any blessing of same-sex unions as one criterion for this - to which one member responded that this had never occurred at Trinity - while pledging pastoral care to any and all who sought it. She also noted that despite past tensions with the diocesan leadership, Trinity had benefited significantly from diocesan grants in recent years for a new sound system, support for her assistant and funds from Celebrate 250 for cleaning the exterior of the Cathedral. Discussion then proceeded to a paper prepared by the rector of Fox Chapel Church on the four options open to the Diocese ranging from absolute submission to diocesan departure (all, interestingly enough, likely to involve the loss of members and funds - there is no 'safe' option). The present lawsuit initiated by Calvary Church (an entirely local affair to which the national church is - as yet - not a party) is costing the Diocese $30,000 a month and is likely to run in the neighborhood of $500,000 by the time it comes to trial.

Throughout the discussion, a degree of civility was shown by all parties, which, one feels, could profitably be employed elsewhere in the Church. Of course, this may be because we are not really concerned - rightly or wrongly - with trying to convince the other side of deep doctrinal error, though we still pray for a miracle in the midst of uncertainty. One parishioner asked bluntly what reason there was - aside from a purely financial one - in trying to stay together when relations had become so bad. She noted that in the town in which she had grown up several of the local Protestant churches had divided over doctrinal issues and had emerged as independent entities better focused on their mission of saving the lost as a result. This is, of course, the classic American Protestant model and the present leaders of CANA and AMIA seem desirous of proving the truth of her statement. Whether it will turn out to be true in the long term remains to be seen. The founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church were similarly optimistic during the 1870s. Other members spoke to the importance of history and tradition in the Episcopal experience and to a commitment to catholicity in its widest sense as reasons why Christians might shrink from separation until the eleventh hour.

Some more conservative members of the congregation who are comparatively new to the Episcopal/Anglican scene warned against a premature rush towards schism. Setting up a new entity to preserve doctrinal purity, they said, was not always as effective at changing the surrounding culture as one might think. "There's got to be some middle ground," one remarked. The senior warden added that nothing currently going on outside the Cathedral was as important as what was taking place within it in terms of worship, fellowship and ministry, though this did not free us from making a decision when a concrete issue was presented. Such a decision would be one for every member as well as for the Cathedral as a corporate unit. All agreed with the remark of one parishioner, who has no desire to see the congregation divide, that the present divisions are not allowing us to move forward in mission, but the question remains as to how to break the logjam.

Given today's announcement of the pending resignation of the Bishop Steenson of the Diocese of the Rio Grande (over concern about the present course of The Episcopal Church) the prospects look far from promising. What I do believe - and said as much at the meeting - is that the rationale for seeking to retain buildings should be predicated upon a congregation's ability to maintain them independently. Absent a negotiated settlement (either diocesan or national), the ultimate obligation of Communion conservatives at Trinity Cathedral is to withdraw if matters look set to go to law. It is no part of Christian stewardship to go into court to try and retain a structure that we cannot presently sustain. The fact that it is the bishop's seat does not, to my mind, make any difference. Perhaps the plurality of Common Cause bishops is actually a good thing. With fewer congregations, bishops may be able to focus more on direct pastoral oversight as their administrative responsibilities decline.

A Pastoral Relationship: Trinity Cathedral and Shepherd's Heart Fellowship

The first Sunday after the Feast of the Epiphany marked the launch of a new pastoral ministry for the congregation of Pittsburgh’s Trinity Cathedral, as we embarked upon a partnership ministry with Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship in the city’s Uptown District. Shepherd’s Heart [1] remains one of the more innovative ministry arrangements to come out of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Begun in 1993, as a ministry of pastoral care (both material and spiritual) to the homeless residents of Oakland (home of the University of Pittsburgh), it moved to its current location, just blocks from Pittsburgh’s Mercy Hospital, in 2006. Regular worship takes place on Sunday evenings at 5:15 PM, followed by a meal supplied in rotation by different congregations. Although many of its members are only nominally on the rolls, the ratio of average Sunday attendance to membership is one of the highest in the Diocese, and its members, though some of the poorest, contribute liberally from what they have.

Until now, Shepherd’s Heart has been open as a place of rest and refreshment from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM on weekdays. Under the new partnership with Trinity Cathedral, it will now be open on Sunday mornings. The impetus for Trinity’s involvement was spurred by our recognition that many of those using cold weather shelters come to be with us on Sunday mornings because we are one of the few downtown churches willing to admit them during regular worship hours. Our dilemma has been that most (though by no means all) are looking for a safe environment (and shelters frequently cannot be so characterized) where they can obtain a few hours of slumber and do not wish to participate in regular congregational worship. Lacking a secure environment of our own, we wished to provide an atmosphere better suited to rest and food more nourishing than that commonly available at coffee hour. Shepherd’s Heart was willing to open its doors for this purpose provided we could supply volunteers.

While hoping for the best, I will admit that, as Outreach Committee chair, I prepared for the worst in the days leading up to January 7. I was to be pleasantly surprised. The only fly in the ointment came in the late morning when the temporarily rented van bringing Trinity visitors to Shepherd’s Heart (about three-quarters of a mile away) died without warning, requiring a call to AAA. Together with another Trinity parishioner and one of the assistant priests from Shepherd’s Heart, we hosted a gathering that peaked at around ten guests (I suspect that once word gets onto the street, attendance will increase). We offered food and coffee, distributed numerous items of clothing, talked with some of our guests and together read Morning Prayer. Pastor Jim Morehead led us in an interactive homily, during which one of our attendees proved to be remarkably well-informed in Holy Scripture. There are always moments in pastoral ministry that stay with you: mine came when one parishioner knelt to tie the laces of the shoes of a guest afflicted with arthritis. In that moment, the deeper meaning of the foot washing rite of Maundy Thursday became more than usually evident.

Life at Trinity frequently seems far removed from that of Uptown, and yet it is the neighborhood closest to the Cathedral. In the faces of those whom we served today, I saw men and women who, like me, have been saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Knowing how much “we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” [2] we as a congregation should indeed be grateful that we have been given this opportunity to serve. When we pray with St. John “that we all may be one,” [3] we tend to think, especially in these troubled times, of our unity as Christians, and yet the message of today’s epistle [4] is that in Christ “there is no partiality” between the churched and the unchurched. Our ministry at Shepherd’s Heart bears the same message, the same search for healing and unity in Christ, the same redemption by grace through faith that is proclaimed at Trinity Cathedral. All that we do in the one place must inform what we do in the other.

Notes

[1] http://shepheart.com/luke

[2] Romans, 3:23.

[3] John 17:20.

[4] Acts 10: 34-35.

The Church and the Perils of Party Strife: A Cautionary Note

"In the first place the parochial organisation should always be attacked, because, being a unity of place and not of liking, it brings people of different classes and psychology together in the kind of unity the Enemy desires. The congregational principle, on the other hand, makes each church into a kind of club, and finally, if all goes well, into a coterie or faction. In the second place, the search for a 'suitable' church makes the man a critic where the Enemy wants him to be a pupil. What He wants of the layman in church is an attitude which may, indeed, be critical in the sense of rejecting what is false and unhelpful, but which is wholly uncritical in the sense that it does not appraise - does not waste time in thinking about what it rejects, but lays itself open in uncommenting, humble receptivity to any nourishment that is going. (You see how grovelling, how unspiritual, how irredeemably vulgar He is!) This attitude, especially during sermons, creates the condition (most hostile to our whole policy) in which platitudes can become really audible to a human soul. There is hardly any sermon, or any book, which may not be dangerous to us if it is received in this temper.

I think I warned you before that if your patient can't be kept out of the Church, he ought at least to be violently attached to some party within it. I don't mean on really doctrinal issues; about those, the more lukewarm he is, the better. And it isn't the doctrines on which we chiefly depend for producing malice. The real fun is working up hatred between those who say 'mass' and those who say 'holy communion' when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes. And all the purely indifferent things - candles and clothes and what not - are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men's minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials - namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think that they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the 'low' churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his 'high' brother should be moved to irreverence, and the 'high' one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his 'low' brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that, the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility."

Extracts from C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters. (New York: Macmillan, rev. ed. 1982), 72-75.