I couldn't find a really appropriate thread to put this link in, and also didn't know how to post a "news" item. But I did want people who might be interested to read about our convention in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh this past weekend. As you may know, we are one of the four USA dioceses in which attempts have been made to leave TEC in order to join (as those leaving TEC hope) the wider Anglican Communion without the encumbrances of what they perceive as a faulty theology developing in the American church. In the Diocese of Pittsburgh many "conservatives" remain in TEC, and we are developing ways to work with our more "progressive" friends in an atmosphere of mutual respect, while still witnessing to what we believe are the truths of our faith. This weekend we all--conservative and progressive alike--seemed to succeed. I pray the present spirit endures. Below is a link to a news article in the local paper about the second convention of the "unrealigned," remaining diocese. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09291/1006456-455.stm

Hello Celinda.   Well of course some peoples' good news may not be so good for other people.    Certainly not everyone thinks the appointment of Bishop Price is at all encouraging.   One commenter described him in these terms:

"Bishop Price is a loyal supporter of the Integrity agenda, but I guess that is of little importance to the remaining “conservatives” in TEC Pittsburgh, at least compared with the importance of maintaining good rapport with progressive wing.  He voted in favor of D025 and C056 at GenCon ‘09 and those votes were consistent with his voting record which can be easily found at Louie Crew’s website.  So the new Provisional Bishop is a solid revisionist.  I know it’s considered very impolite to mention it now in the new “love fest” (to quote the Post Gazette), but it seems like this should have been a very important issue to those who pretend to support traditional Biblical views of sexuality… "

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25936/#comments

and other concerns expressed by 'Wildfire', Dean Munday of Nashotah House [and based on that by me] about the uncanonical removal of the ordained ministry of priests by your standing committee are here:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25720/#395603

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25769/#395776

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25930/

While it is kind of you to bring us examples of "orthodox" bishops from your church and their writings surely you can find us better examples than Bishops Marshall, Breidenthal and Price all of whom voted for the two resolutions at General Convention which take same sex rites and gay active partnered bishops further.   Am I right in remembering that your latest example, Bishop Little came to plead with Archbishop Rowan to invite Bishop Gene Robinson to Lambeth?

I do however pray that things work out OK for you in your own church and that God blesses you and keeps you safe.

Hello Celinda

I read the article just after it went up on the US blogs.   The issue is not what he is going to do with you and your colleagues, he is there as all the other bishops of Fort Worth, San Joaquin etc are at the behest of Mrs Schori whose selection he is.    To date these bishops have shown that they are there for the purposes of her and her Chancellor's litigation policy.   Soothing things may have been said to you in the run up to the appointment but you are not the target of Mrs Schori in proposing him.    You take a risk in trusting a liberal to head what you say are your mainly conservative congregations.   I hope you don't come to regret that and I hope he keeps his promises.     We will probably see before long what his attitude is to your departed colleagues and friends - may I ask what you expect him to do with regard to them?

[I read the statements of Bishops Breidenthal and Marshall shortly after they came out along with a number of others on the Forrester issue.    But as I mentioned twice before when you brought them up, I now look at what American bishops do rather than what they say.]

Celinda -  I think James 2:18-19 might help.    Actions sometimes speak louder than words...and can show a certain inconsistency when words may sound very good indeed.

Celinda - for the fourth time - I am talking about your assertion about their "orthodoxy" as though you can tick off points on a check list and say well Bishop Oddjob is sound on this, not sound on that, sound on this and sound on this, therefore being 75% orthodox they pass the Celinda test of orthodoxy.   That is just how it works.   In supporting the resolutions to overturn TEC HOB's moratorium promises at New Orleans in my view they are hardly "orthodox" whatever temptations you have to make orthodoxy a relative concept.     I am sure that one of our former bishops who questioned the virgin birth thought he was "orthodox" on other issues.    Not many other people thought so.

Sorry, I missed your prior post.   Several early reports were that Bishop Price was indeed proposed by Mrs Schori's office.   I am not making assumptions, and am not suggesting that she then entered the process used by the standing committee.

Pageatmaster -

do you have to be gratuitously rude? Katharine Jefferts Schori's title is not Mrs Schori, it is at least Dr Schori, and Bishop Schori would do.

What 'virgin birth' ?