The keynote speaker at the upcoming Convention in the Diocese of Pittsburgh will be former Episcopal Priest and now Ugandan Bishop John Guernsey. He will speak to a Convention that will consider two resolutions representing opposite approaches to the future relationship of the Diocese to the Episcopal Church.
Guernsey was consecrated Bishop last September in Kampala, Uganda and is charged with leading the 33 former-Episcopal Churches that have become apart of the Province of Uganda. Last September, Guernsey led his parish out of the Diocese of Virginia and into the Ugandan church.
The two proposed resolutions offer opposite directions for the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Resolution Two would restore the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to the language that existed in 2004: that the Diocese is a constituent member of the Episcopal Church and “accedes to, recognizes, and adopts the Constitution and Canons of that Church, and acknowledges its authority accordingly.”
The other resolution, numbered One, would emphasize the Dioceses separation from the Episcopal Church and further would allow the Diocese to welcome into membership congregations that are not within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The movers of the Resolution Two note that they are following the lead of Bishop John Howe of Central Florida.
The Executive Council passed its statement on the unconstitutionality of the 2004
Pittsburgh amendment after a full discussion and with the full support of its Chancellor, Sally
Johnson, Esqr. The measure was brought forward from the Committee on National Concerns after full discussion there. At least six members of Executive Council are trained in the law and all supported this Executive Council resolution. Recently Bishop John Howe of Central Florida, (a founding member of the Anglican Communion Network) ruled out of order a proposal to add a qualification to the accession clause of that diocese because it was beyond the power of the diocese to change the clause. He had sought advice from 15 individuals, both liberal and conservative, including the two chancellors of the diocese of Central Florida and those of the dioceses of Utah, Colorado, and Upper South Carolina, the Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, the Chancellor to the Executive Council, the past parliamentarian of the House of Bishops, four bishops with legal background (including Bishop William Wantland), and several other bishops and a leading expert on parliamentary procedure. This group overwhelmingly supported Bishop Howe’s ruling that it is beyond the power of a diocese to alter the accession statement once the diocesan constitution has been accepted by General Convention. Thus the weight of legal opinion in the church has confirmed that our diocesan convention exceeded its powers in 2004. Leaving a statement which is null and void in the text of the Constitution and Canons is to confuse unnecessarily those who turn to the document for guidance.
No explanation is offered for the purpose or intent of Resolution One, but it is clear that instead of seeking a relationship with a Primate outside of the Episcopal Church, the movers wish the Diocese of Pittsburgh to become an independent body that exists parallel to the Episcopal Church, with the power to welcome into its jurisdiction any church outside of the Pennsylvania counties that comprise that diocese as long as they “meet all other requirements set forth in the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for canonical admission.”
The motion also creates provision for an extra-diocesan synod or convention.
It is interesting to note that in choosing the speaker they have and in putting forward a resolution which would radically redraw the relationship of Diocese to Province, that they have decided not to align with an existing African Province such as CANA, that the Diocese is not seeking to be under the authority of any other African-ordained American bishop, and would also be in a position to create a new denominational structure separate from the Episcopal Church but building on the congregations, dioceses and past mission of the Episcopal Church.
Passing Resolution One would most assuredly create a legal and pastoral conflict for both the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. If it passes, it may indicate that, despite the warnings and preferences of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they are ready to provoke the long-anticipated showdown.
Read the Announcement of Convention here.
Resolution One is here.
Resolution Two is here.