As I stated in my Bishop’s Address at our Diocesan Convention in March, I see little reward or benefit in expending our resources and energies in unfruitful expeditions trying to stem the tide of revisionism in The Episcopal Church. Certainly I ask those who are intercessors to pray that God would “stay the hand of the revisionists” at General Convention. And we who attend will, under God, carry out our roles in faithful witness to the truth as we have received it in Holy Scripture and in the traditions of the Church. But the creative thrust of the diocese””beyond the gospel imperative to preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches as missionary outposts of the Kingdom of God””needs to be elsewhere than in political machinations of the General Convention. As I’ve stated before, God has called us to help shape the future of Anglicanism through mutually enriching missional relationships and through inter-diocesan, inter-provincial accountability. Certainly, Kendall as our Canon Theologian will monitor the developments at General Convention 2009, but I believe it is in keeping with our declared vision as a diocese to focus on what we believe God is calling us to do, not on the strategies and battles he called us to engage in yesterday.
Before I conclude, let me address an issue that I find is sometimes confusing to many within the diocese, as well as those who are watching us in the reappraiser wing of North American Anglicanism, specifically in what is called “The Inside Strategy.” Among the writers and bloggers of North American Anglicanism there has emerged what some call the inside and the outside strategy in battling with heterodox teaching and practice in the Church. Some who were once Episcopalians have left because they were convinced that anything resembling orthodox belief and practice was lost. Many of these are now gathering at the ACNA convention. They are sometimes referred to as engaging in the outside strategy. That is, in the cause of orthodoxy in North American Anglicanism they have left previously official churches, such as the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the United States. According to this understanding it is believed the best way to revive or reform Anglicanism in North America is to work outside the established churches of the Anglican Communion. In distinction from those outside there are those who remain within TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada. Since they are staying, but still hold to the same understanding of the faith as those who have left, it is assumed by some that they must be carrying out an inside strategy of reformation. We in South Carolina are then said to be carrying out such an agenda””battling for orthodoxy, seeking to win back the day in The Episcopal Church in some maneuvering of ecclesiastical politics. While some within the Church may indeed be doing this, it is certainly not my intent. The stakes at present are much higher than what is happening in Episcopalianism or the continuing Anglican bodies in North America.
If we could be said to be carrying out an “Inside Strategy” it is not towards TEC: it is toward the Anglican Communion. Put simply, we remain inside the structures of the Communion to help shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century so long as we are able. It is ironic that as one of the few dioceses of The Episcopal Church with documented growth in every significant metric of measurement””membership, average Sunday attendance (ASA), spiritual vitality, finances, missional relationships through the last decade””we can influence the developments within global Anglicanism more effectively than we can influence our own Church! When conferences are held for bishops and leaders in TEC about growth and reaching new generations, why are experts brought in from non-Anglican sources and the prior architect of growth in the one diocese in TEC that has documented growth, Bishop Salmon, is not invited to speak? Why are the rectors in this diocese who have so clearly effectively reached their communities with the gospel never once referenced or consulted? Even the Presiding Bishop had to revise her statement that no diocese in TEC had seen growth, when documentation was cited that South Carolina had seen significant decadal growth. But, irony aside, getting back to my main point, our “Inside Strategy” is not to tilt at windmills in Quixotic fashion thinking we can turn back the clock to some prior age; it is to help shape the future that is emerging in global Anglicanism from within the Communion.
[Comment deleted by Elf – comments encouraging, instructing or suggesting the inevitability of leaving one church or joining others are against comment policy at T19. We would be grateful if commenters would please assist us by observing this rule.]
+Mark Lawrence is a brick. He is a godly pastor and gives good advice. South Carolina can’t be an island forever, but for the present, people should follow his gracious leadership.
[Comment edited by Elf]
A beautiful thin, red line in the sand. A great diocese and bishop that truly honours the Lord and is a wonderful witness to the progressives in TEC.
Robroy writes in #2 that “South Carolina can’t be an island forever.” I think sadly he’s right. Over time the regnant party in TEC will only get stronger, and will eventually pass resolutions requiring all parishes in all dioceses to do gay weddings, to call the first person of the Trinity our mother, and so on. All on the grounds of justice no doubt.
But it’s worth observing that, before KJS, one wouldn’t have guessed it. In the past TEC dioceses were permitted to have their own identity and indeed it was understood as a good thing, thus for example islands of strong Anglo-Catholicism and islands of low-church evangelicalism (as recently as 2001 I was attending a cathedral that regularly offered a full morning prayer service as one of the main Sunday services every week).
But with KJS we have seen a consolidation of power in 815 like its never been seen before, and an extraordinary intolerance for anyone deviating from her agenda. I think that’s here to stay.
I suppose ultimately it may come down to a few questions for South Carolina:
1. Will the diocese see itself as going on record with the Anglican Covenant as important within 2 years or just optional and thus wait until this Province gives South Carolina permission to do so.
2. Will South Carolina value continued recognition from the Global South and Africa?
3. Will South Carolina value continued relations with ecumenical partners?
These, and other questions, to me, will determine what South Carolina must ask of itself and then see itself choosing accordingly.
Fr. Kendall – I am saddened that you will not be attending…you fought the good fight in ’03….and yes, that is all we can ask of you. But, I’ve always had the feeling that you were also a lover of history. I would wish that you would be a witness to the probable history that will be made a GE09. Not to our liking, but never the less, history…..I respect your decision not to attend, but I can’t help but be disappointed…..
What a fantastic letter this is. It really does the heart good to see someone — and a bishop — articulate the inside strategy so well.
And I agree that Kendall shouldn’t waste his time attempting to pass resolutions or strategize at the GC level—let the revisionists have it and run it into the ground, as they assuredly will. Back in 06, the teensy conservative crew were blamed by the “institutional revisionists†and the self-proclaimed “moderates†for anything bad that happened—I haven’t forgotten the incensed and infuriated blast of a letter written to the State from the dean of the Cathedral in Columbia, in which he actually blamed the conservatives for not helping to pretty up the outcomes.
I think it’s best to sit and watch the institutional revisionists duke it out with the foaming at the mouth revisionists and enjoy the show, since certainly the conservative deputies cannot have an impact on the end result — at the national level, that is.
While I honestly despise having to deal with church politics, in some ways this is disappointing to me that the political side of this seems to be abandoned. This is especially because the argument from a number of the priests of Pittsburgh who chose not to realign was that they could not be agents of Orthodox change in TEC if they were not in TEC. These priests also seemed to be priests who were not actually involved with TEC any further out than the Diocesan level. While I do hope SC with + Lawrence’s great leadership will be able to be an influence on TEC, I’m not sure how they, or those priests in Pgh. who did not realign, will do it with this mentality of just acting locally. May God richly bless the entire diocese and let the Orthodox both inside and out of TEC continue to follow God’s call to be faithful ministers.
RE: “While I do hope SC with + Lawrence’s great leadership will be able to be an influence on TEC, I’m not sure how they, or those priests in Pgh. who did not realign, will do it with this mentality of just acting locally.”
It doesn’t appear that we read the same letter.
[blockquote]”We in South Carolina are then said to be carrying out such an agenda—battling for orthodoxy, seeking to win back the day in The Episcopal Church in some maneuvering of ecclesiastical politics. While some within the Church may indeed be doing this, it is certainly not my intent. The stakes at present are much higher than what is happening in Episcopalianism or the continuing Anglican bodies in North America.
If we could be said to be carrying out an “Inside Strategy†it is not towards TEC: it is toward the Anglican Communion. Put simply, we remain inside the structures of the Communion to help shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century so long as we are able.” [/blockquote]
That vision is anything but “local” nor does it seek at all to be an influence on TEC at the national level, ie, at General Convention.
To put it another way, who said that Bishop Lawrence is going to surrender the use of politics?
He is merely going to spend his time engaging in necessary political activities — as well as I am sure other activities — at a time and place of his own choosing.
I like it.
Understood. I thought with all the trash talk online about TEC being apostate (which it’s not) etc. I was on solid ground, far away from that. No problem.
Cutting out the offensive part, I think in the long run you’ll be forced out. A fallible church has unlimited power to change its past teachings and obviously gay weddings will be required belief in TEC as, on the books, WO is now.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
Oh, sorry.
[blockquote]… comments encouraging, instructing or suggesting the inevitability of leaving one church or joining others are against comment policy at T19.[/blockquote]
Duly noted. Won’t happen again.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
[Thank you The young fogey – Elf]
Kendall or others, what is the sense as to how many in SC want to leave? I’m thinking around 50% (and more importantly growing), but I’m on the periphery somewhat. Interested to hear what others think….
As a person just above the lower diocese . . . I’m guessing 5-10%.
I’m confident that’s not what people who have left TEC want to hear . . . but that’s my sense. There’s a ton of flow back and forth in communication between conservatives in the two dioceses . . . since we all often do business and vacations cross-border . . . so I get to talk to lots of people in the “lower diocese” . . . ; > )
I find in Bishop Lawrence’s message a complete, if sad, recognition of the reality facing orthodox Christians still in TEC:
“The cause of biblical orthodoxy within TEC is no longer a realistic thing to strive for through the councils of TEC. Politically speaking, we have lost the day. Those of us who are going from South Carolina go to bear witness—to speak the truth as we have received it, and with love (as St. Paul enjoins us). But the days of strategizing with others who may align sympathetically with us to win some political victory through resolutions on the floor of the HOD or HOB is, at least for now, a thing of the past.”
It’s not clear to me how long he and other faithful Anglicans in TEC will continue to “bear witness” — which is all that there is now left to do in TEC. However, he and others who have made this choice to stay for now deserve our prayers and our respect. I trust they will continue to offer those of us in ACNA the same.
I agree with Sarah above. This is a superb letter in every way. It’s clear, calm, courageous, confident, and wise. Although I’ve thrown in my lot with the ACNA and the so-called outside strategy, I think +Mark Lawrence has described his vision of the “inside strategy” with admirable clarity, i.e., choosing to work for change in the sphere where it’s realistically possible, within the global Anglican Communion, and not in TEC, where it would now be as futile as Don Quixote’s jousting with windmills (a marvelously vivid and apt analogy by the bishop).
Alas, that strategy at the global level appears to depend entirely on the proposed Anglican Covenant, and the weakness of that approach is all too evident in how the Covenant was notoriously sabotaged and nefariously sidetracked and delayed in Jamaica by a devious liberal minority. And since the Ridley Cambridge Draft places so much power in the hands of the untrustworthy Joint Standing Committee, a totally compromised group that’s completely dominated by hardcore liberals and western colonialists, I’m afraid that it’s sadly just as unrealistic to expect anything good to come out of the Covenant process as it is to try to roll back the tide in TEC.
That’s one key reason why I chosen to invest my energies and time in working through the outside channels or new wineskins of the FCA movement, rather than to waste those efforts (in all likelihood) on trying to salvage the current wineskins of the AC. But in the end, we must all do what we feel called by the Lord to do, and play the part he has assigned to us, as best we can discern it
As every parent of teenagers knows, and every military commander is well aware, you have to pick your battles. The noble +Mark Lawrence is wisely picking his, and so is Kendall+, and I commend them for it. The longer +Lawrence is in office and has a chance to exert leadership in SC, the more impressed I am. If we’d had 20 men of his outstanding caliber in the HoB 20 years ago, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.
David Handy+
It is sad to recognise — as surely Bishop Lawrence does – that he will be the last orthodox Bishop of this diocese, and that by surrendering to the councils of the church, the diocese of South Carolina will inevitably fall upon his retirement.
The light shines dimly — before being put out by the darkness.
RE: “that he will be the last orthodox Bishop of this diocese, . . . ”
As Bishop Salmon was said repeatedly to recognize about himself as well, since no further orthodox bishops would be approved.
Sarah, honestly, what I wrote is what my fears are regarding a possible outcome. It is what I think is ultimately going to happen in Pgh. for those who did not realign. What I hope is that that fear is proven unfounded. I do find the comment regarding an “inside strategy” not with TEC but with the Anglican Communion a bit puzzeling as SC is technically a part of TEC first and let’s be honest, to change TEC through the AC, enough of TEC will have to be willing to accept disciplin from the AC and enough of the AC will have to get the (fill in the blank with what you want) to actually discipline TEC. Will it happen? Only God knows right now. All I can do right now is pray it does happen and that +Lawrence will be able to be a great force for the reformation of TEC.
Thanks for the clarification, InChristAlone.
I think that Lawrence wishes to be a part of the renewal and reform of the Anglican Communion and does not wish to attempt to change TEC. I think it’s possible to do that.
Speaking as one of the Pittsburgh clergy who remained in the hope of being part of the reformation of PECUSA, I have to say that I think the recognition that the political battle is lost is the essential first step in any new effort at reform. Jesus specifically called us as ‘witnesses’, and never said a word about political tactics, and I have no doubt that simply being a witness will have a spiritual effect deeper than any of us can know.
I’m tempted to say that we shouldn’t sound so glum about giving up the old method, but at the recent gathering of PECUSA Evangelicals at VTS Bob Prichard pointed out that ‘the fear that somehow we have not been faithful enough is often most deeply felt at the beginning of a time of great revival, and renewal and rebuilding the life of the church,’ so perhaps even the disappointment is inevitable. But an opportunity to witness, and people willing to witness, is something to be very thankful for.