Among the many doctrines of our Faith to which I might ask you to turn your thoughts this morning it is first to that wonderful doctrine of God’s Providence. It was to this doctrine that my distant predecessor, The Rt. Reverend Robert Smith, first bishop of South Carolina, turned when he addressed the Colonial Assembly which gathered at St. Philips Church in the early months of 1775 as the winds of war were blowing on the eve of the American Revolution. Of course he was not at that time a bishop. There were no bishops on these shores, though Anglicanism was well into its second century on this continent. Nor was he a bishop when he returned to Charleston from imprisonment and banishment in 1783 to give his homecoming sermon, where once again he spoke of an “overruling Providence”. As perhaps you know, his banishment to a northern colony was due to his having taken words and arms against his former king and country””and having thrown in his lot with his adopted home, he risked and lost everything. He was taken to Philadelphia bereaved of wife (she had recently died), and bereft of home and parish. But on that public occasion in February 1775, before he had ever fired a musket towards a British troop, this unlikely patriot declared his deepest allegiance:
“We form schemes of happiness and deceive ourselves with a weak imagination of security, without ever taking God into the question; no wonder then if our hopes prove abortive, and the conceits of our vain minds end in disappointment and sorrow. For we are inclined to attribute our prosperity to the wisdom of our own councils, and the arm of our own flesh, we become forgetful of him from whom our strength and wisdom are derived; and are then betrayed into that fatal security, which ends in shame, in misery and ruin.”
Is it not towards such false peace or fatal security that we are tempted too often and too soon to fling ourselves?
I believe for us to discern God’s purpose and role for this diocese in this current challenge, and then to live it out faithfully, will involve each of us in more struggles and suffering than we have yet invested””for we have invested as yet, so little. This is not a challenge for a bishop or even a Standing Committee to face alone. None of us can afford to keep the members of our parishes uninformed of the challenges that lie ahead. Consequently, since I see struggle and suffering before each of us, it is towards God’s beneficent providence I chose first to turn our attention this morning. And where can we find a text to so focus our thoughts on this strengthening doctrine than that which is found in the prophet Isaiah””spoken to those in exile?
“Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth when he blows on them, and they wither, and the tempest carries them off like stubble.” (Isaiah 40:21-24)
I believe for us to discern God’s purpose and role for this diocese in this current challenge, and then to live it out faithfully, will involve each of us in more struggles and suffering than we have yet invested””for we have invested as yet, so little. This is not a challenge for a bishop or even a Standing Committee to face alone. None of us can afford to keep the members of our parishes uninformed of the challenges that lie ahead. Consequently, since I see struggle and suffering before each of us, it is towards God’s beneficent providence I chose first to turn our attention this morning. And where can we find a text to so focus our thoughts on this strengthening doctrine than that which is found in the prophet Isaiah””spoken to those in exile?
“Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth when he blows on them, and they wither, and the tempest carries them off like stubble.” (Isaiah 40:21-24)
It is under such a godly Providence that we live””and it is under this godly providence, whether we act or merely stand firm in prayerful posture, that we “shall mount up with wings like eagles, [we] shall run and not be weary, [we] shall walk and not faint.”
In our present situation some would counsel us that it is past time to cut our moorings from The Episcopal Church and take refuge in a harbor without the pluralism and false teachings that surround us in both the secular culture and within our Church; others speak to us of the need for patience, to “let the Instruments of Unity do their work”””that now is not yet the time to act. Still others seem paralyzed; though no less distressed than us by the developments within our Church, they seem to take a posture of insular denial of what is inexorably coming upon us all. While I have no immediate solution to the challenges we face””it is certainly neither a hasty departure nor a paralyzed passivity I counsel. Either of these I believe, regardless of what godly wisdom they may be for others, would be for us a false peace and a “fatal security” which in time (and brief at that) would only betray us. Others in their given circumstances must do what they believe God has called them to do.
One must remember, however, that it is an ever changing landscape in Anglicanism today so there is a need for dynamism lest one becomes too passive, and for provisionality ”˜lest one should not notice the engagement has moved on to a new field of action.
The false Gospel of an Indiscriminate Inclusivity
It is perfectly understandable to me that many among us may look at the developments during the last several decades and believe it is The Episcopal Church (TEC) that is our problem. Those of us who refer to ourselves as reasserters, conservatives, Anglo-Catholics or Evangelicals, or sometimes under the sweeping moniker of “orthodox” have often felt ourselves driven, if not out, then to the margins of this Church. We refer sometimes with derision to the Presiding Bishop (whether Bps Browning, Griswold or Jefferts Schori). We speak of 815, the “National” Church, the General Convention, as problems we have to react to, and believe we know what it is we are fighting, or are in conflict with. Sometimes it all comes under the title of TEC. Never realizing perhaps that here at least in South Carolina we are the Church: The Episcopal Church. It is only as I’ve allowed my Lord to remove the anger toward these “institutions” of the Church that I can recognize with greater clarity what it is I need to engage””and even fight against.
When the apostle Paul heard that the churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2) were being misled by a “new” gospel, turning away from Christ and his grace it was not the churches themselves he attacked. Certainly he spoke firmly when he penned or dictated the words “O foolish Galatians! who has bewitched you”¦..” Or stated in those opening verses of the letter “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel””not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” His sharp words addressed the false teaching and those who preached it. (Galatians 1:6””9). So too in our present context it is not The Episcopal Church that is the problem, it is those who have cloaked it with so many strands of false doctrine that we can well wonder if indeed it can be salvaged. Like an invading vine unnatural to the habitat that has covered a once elegant, old growth forest with what to some looks like a gracious vine it is in fact decorative destruction. What may look like a flower may be bramble.
We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed. I must by necessity be brief and cannot give any of these concerns the attention they deserve.
”¢ The Trinity. One of the doctrines under barrage in our Church is an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord’s Prayer. In the name of inclusion there’s the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun “he” is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God “Abba” and taught the disciples to prayer “Our Father.” Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything? As many of you know there is more here than I have time to explore this morning.
”¢ Uniqueness of Christ. In my opinion the current Presiding Bishop has repeatedly been irresponsible with her comments regarding the doctrine of the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ. This will not surprise you, for I said as much to her when she visited us shortly after my consecration. In answering questions about the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ she has repeatedly suggested that it is not up to her to decide what the mechanism is God uses to save people. But, quite to the contrary, it is her responsibility as a bishop of the Church to proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ and to teach what it is the Scriptures and the Church teach. Anything less from us who are bishops is an abdication of our teaching office. Otherwise how will the world know to whom to come? How will the unschooled within the Church know what they should believe? I do not cite this to be controversial but to reference the pervasiveness of this inclusive gospel that would, in its attempt to include all people and all religions, fail to rightly delight in, celebrate and worship him before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord. It does not honor another religion to not be forthright about one’s own. As the English Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali observed , “Fudging important issues and attempting a superficial harmonization gives a sense of unity that is untrue and ”¦ prevents real differences from being acknowledged and discussed.” And we haven’t time to discuss brief swipes toward confessional approaches to the faith except to ask””wasn’t the Lordship of Christ the first confession of the faithful””even in the face of Caesar’s claim to Lordship? Did not St. Paul teach that if we confess with our lips and believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord we shall be saved? Does not the baptismal rite require such a formulaic statement of the individual before the assembled body who witness it? Such statements, unfortunately, make it necessary for us to correct rather than to support leadership.
”¢ Scriptural Authority. This is such a comprehensive dimension of our present crisis in the church that one hardly knows where to begin. But one can hardly do better than St. Ambrose’s statement that “the whole of Holy Scripture be a feast for the soul.” How seldom one hears upon us who are bishops in Tec such glowing statements about the Bible. In my experience all too many of our bishops and priests seem to mine the scriptures for minerals to use in vain idolatries. There is too little confidence expressed in its trustworthiness; the authority and uniqueness of revelation. Indeed, as J.V. Langmead-Casserly once put it, “We have developed a method of studying the Word of God from which a Word of God never comes.” Too often supposed conundrums or difficulties are brought up, seemingly in order to detract from traditional understandings, never considering the damage to the faithful’s trust in God and his Word. Ridiculous arguments such as shellfish and mixed fabrics are dragged out (long reconciled by the Fathers of the Church, as well as the Anglican Reformers) in order to confuse the ill-taught or the untutored in theology. And those who are intellectually sophisticated, schooled in many academic disciplines, but dreadfully untaught in the Bible and theology, are, through little fault of their own, except for naively trusting generations of slothful priests and bishops, are led astray. We must be willing to speak out against this.
”¢ Baptismal Theology detached from Biblical and Catholic doctrine. The phrase heard frequently at General Convention 2009 was “All the sacraments for all the Baptized”. One suspects that great Catholic teacher of the 4th Century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem would have been unconvinced for he wrote tellingly of Simon Magus, “he was baptized, but not enlightened. His body was dipped in water, but admitted not the Spirit to illuminate his heart. His body went down and came up; but his soul was not buried together with Christ nor with him raised.” (see Acts 8:9-24) Nevertheless, this inadequate baptismal theology was used to argue for the full inclusion of partnered GLBT persons to all the orders of the Church””deacons, priests and bishops. What it singularly misses is the straightforward teaching of the catechism, not to mention of the New Testament’s “teaching that baptism is a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life in Christ.” (N.T. Wright) Even if one would turn to the simplicity of the catechism one would encounter this question and answer: Q. What is required of us at Baptism? A. It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Since when has baptism been the ticket to ordination in the Church? The Archbishop’s perceptive comment in section 8 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” is pertinent here.
”¢ Human Sexuality. While it has been a clever device of some in recent years to refer to the varied approach to marriage in the different epochs of biblical history, often done in ways that are intended to bring more confusion rather than clarity, (ignoring that well honored hermeneutic of interpreting the less clear passages of Holy Scripture by the clearer, or not interpreting one text in such a way that it is repugnant to another) we are back with that tendency of ordained leaders of the Church and professors of religion to confound the faithful rather than to instruct””it has been used repeatedly in this current debate regarding Human Sexuality and the establishment of an inclusive moral equivalency of GLBT sexual unions with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and a woman.
”¢ Constitution & Canons””Common Life. These, and other examples that could be cited, are illustrative of this “new gospel” of Indiscriminate Inclusivity that began with a denigration of the Holy Scriptures, then, step by step has brought the very core teachings of the Christian faith under its distorting and destructive sway. Thus, if the Scriptures should teach something contrary to this “gospel’s” most recent incarnation, (take for instance the full inclusion of GLBT) then the Scripture’s broad themes or individual passages, which plainly oppose current understanding of same-sex genital behavior, must be deconstructed. And if the bonds of affection within the Worldwide Anglican Communion are a hindrance to this gospel of inclusivity then the moral authority and role of the Instruments of Unity are downplayed. Most recently at GC’09 when the BCP’s marriage service, rubrics, and catechism, as well as the Constitution & Canons speak of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, therein conflicting with this inclusive “gospel”, resolution CO56 was passed contrary to our own order of governance and common life””thus one by one, the Holy Scriptures, the teachings of the Church, the Anglican Communion, the Ecumenical relationships with the other bodies of the Church Catholic, and now even our own Book of Common Prayer and Constitutions & Canons are subjugated to this “new” gospel. It is a foreign vine like kudzu draping the old growth forest of Episcopalianism with decorative destruction.
As I wrote in my post-Convention Letter to the Clergy ”There is an increasingly aggressive displacement within this Church of the gospel of Jesus Christ’s transforming power by the “new” gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity which seeks to subsume all in its wake. It is marked by an increased evangelistic zeal and mission that hints at imperialistic plans to spread throughout the Communion. This calls for a bold response.” It is not in my opinion the right action for this diocese to retreat from a thorough engagement with this destructive “new” gospel. As the prophet Ezekiel was called by the Lord to be a Watchman, to sound the alarm of judgment””to warn Israel to turn from her wickedness and live. We are called to speak forthrightly to The Episcopal Church and others, but even more specifically to the thousands of everyday Episcopalians who do not yet know the fullness of this present cultural captivity of the Church. Clearly this is not about the virtue of being “excluding”; it is about being rightly discerning about what is morally and spiritually appropriate. As the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests the Church’s life cannot be “wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal”.
Quite beyond this challenge within our Church this “gospel of indiscriminate inclusion” is as much a movement of the larger European and North American culture as it is a movement within the church. Thus, if one should seek to get away from it by leaving TEC, joining some other denomination, or continuing Anglican body (and please know, I do not say this critically of those who have chosen or felt called to leave) it will not free us from having to engage this challenge. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, this indiscriminant inclusivity is coming to a neighborhood near you. If you are in TEC and resisting this aggressive march you are already on the front lines. If you have a stomach to engage the battle you are rightly situated. It is now a matter of whether one is prepared to engage the challenge or not. We may prefer a false peace or fatal security but don’t think for a minute this challenge will not find us.
Our Present Strategy: Four Guiding Principles
The Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture:
The first principle I wish to affirm in our diocesan life is that the Church lives its life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and under and upon the authority of Holy Scripture. As Article XX in the Articles of Religion states, “”¦it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” (BCP p. 871) Since so many within our diocese may have been confused or disturbed by the newspaper and journal reports of the actions of General Convention 2009, and through reading the very resolutions D025 and C056 themselves, as well as the various contradictory statements by leaders in this Church interpreting what these resolutions mean, the Standing Committee and I are proposing that a Special Meeting of Convention (Diocesan Constitution Art.II sec.2) be called for Saturday, October 24th to deal with several concerns that need to be addressed. One such concern is what may be actually understood by the candidate for ordination as he or she makes the Oath of Conformity, and what the worshiping congregation will in the present climate understand by such a vow. When the ordinand pledges himself to “”¦ solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.” and variations thereof, “in accordance to the canons of this Church”¦” does that imply adherence to these recent resolutions of GC’09? The Standing Committee and I are proposing a resolution for Convention to approve the reading of a letter prior to the spoken vow, and attached with the signed document of conformity, at every ordination in this diocese, thereby making clear what the Church has historically meant by such an oath””explicating what the Book of Common Prayer means by loyalty “to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” (All quotations above may be found on p. 526 and 538 of the BCP)
The Appropriateness of Godly Boundaries””Withdrawal:
Secondly, there is a need to establish appropriate boundaries and differentiation. Why? There is a need for this Diocese and the faithful across TEC to recognize that the actions of General Convention 2009 in adopting resolutions D025 and C056 along with going contrary to 1) Holy Scripture, 2) tradition””that is 2000 years of the Churches interpretation of these very scriptures””understood as the catholic principle of the consensus of the faithful, 3) the mind of the Anglican Communion as expressed in the resolutions of successive Lambeth Conferences and the considered conversation of Lambeth 2008, The Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates as well as the expressed hopes of the Archbishop himself, quite staggeringly also went against 4) even TEC’s own BCP, Catechism, and Constitution & Canons. It is my contention that a resolution adopted by a legislative body, contrary to the Constitution & Canons of that body, by its very adoption is made null and void. Such an institution is in violation of its own principles of governance. Therefore we cannot recognize the actions of GC”09 in passing resolutions DO25 and CO56 and believe that any diocese or bishop which allows partnered gay or lesbian persons to be ordained in holy orders, or allows blessings of same sex unions or “marriages” is in violation of the Canons. Frankly, it is rather staggering that many in the HOB after arguing in DO25 that we needed to return to being guided by our canons in regard to the ordination process instead of BO33, that this same convention then gave permission for bishops to disregard those very canons’ teaching toward marriage. I have personally witnessed the House of Bishops deposing sitting bishops for what they believe was an indiscreet disregard of the Church’s Constitution & Canons. Now hardly a year later the same governing body votes to give certain bishops the permission to do so!
This begs the question””how an institution, having jettisoned what for 2000 years has been the understood teaching of Holy Scripture and collective wisdom of Christendom, and taken refuge in its vaunted polity as expressed in its Constitution & Canons, can allow itself to proceed without first changing those canons? Two reasons: 1) The agenda of Inclusivity is viewed by many to be of such overriding importance as an issue of justice that it subjugates everything under its rubrics. 2) The level of conformity is so staggering that only a few would seem capable of resisting its pressure. And too often, even then the resistance is “This will not fly back home” rather than “I believe this is theologically wrong”. The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions. Let no one think this is a denial of the vows a priest or bishop makes to participate in the councils of governance. This is not a flight into isolation; nor is it an abandonment of duty, but the protest of conscience. It is recognition that the actions of GC’09 were in such blatant disregard and violation of Holy Scripture, the bonds of affection, and our own Constitution & Canons that one is led by reasoned conviction to undertake an intrepid resistance to the tyranny of the majority over judicious authority; therein erring both in Faith and Order.
Domestic Engagement for Relief and Mission:
Thirdly, I have noted in my Post-Convention Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese that we need to find a place not only to survive, but to thrive, and that this needs to be faithful, relational and structural. But this is not merely for our sake, but for others. I have been in conversation with bishops of other dioceses in TEC which find themselves in similar positions of isolation. We have discussed the possibility of developing gatherings of bishops, clergy, and laity for the express purpose of encouragement, education and mission. These gatherings in different regions of the country could bring internationally recognized Christian leaders from across the Anglican Communion to address such things as Holy Scripture, Christian doctrine, issues of pressing concern within the church, as well as the ever important work of ministry, evangelism, mission and church planting. These Dioceses in Missional Relationship I believe can create an environment which will lead to positive growth and concerted actions not merely for future survival but more importantly for growth and expansion.
There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse. I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with “orthodox” congregations isolated across North America. There, consequently, is a need for the laity in South Carolina to be awakened and mobilized for engagement. This includes but is not limited to courses in theology which enables them to articulated their faith in the face of an aggressive displacement biblical and catholic teaching””not only in order to evangelize the lost, but to encourage the laity across the church who are surrounded by teaching that is clearly contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let me say it quite candidly, there may be effective initiatives the laity can undertake that would not be possible for the clergy in this present climate.
The Emergence of 21st Century Anglicanism:
Fourthly, we need to be guided by the principle that we are called to help shape an emerging Anglicanism that is sufficient of the 21st Century. The Archbishop in his recent “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” rightly noted that “it would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another””and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit.” He went on to note, “If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities.” Indeed, I believe it not only “may”; I believe it will. You have heard me say on several occasions, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Well, I believe we should not waste this crisis””neither the ecclesiastical crisis nor the attending economic one. And certainly we should not waste it by taking refuge in a false peace that expresses itself in a retreat into an insular parochialism or a “fatal security” which for us, at least now, would be an escape. We have the opportunity to help shape the emergence of a truly global Anglicanism””Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age. I believe we have a unique role to play within the Anglican Communion. If at present we play that role by being in but not of the mainstream of TEC is it any less important? We passed at our Diocesan Convention in March a resolution which asserted our authority as a diocese to sign onto the Anglican Covenant. The final section read,
“Be it further resolved, that as the Diocese of South Carolina did choose at its Diocesan Convention in 1785, to organize as a diocese, (one of the first seven dioceses in these United States to so organize in that year), and to send delegates to the first General Conventions to organize the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and thereby freely associate its clerical and lay members with the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society””presently known as The Episcopal Church; so this same Diocese does also assert its authority to freely embrace such a Covenant in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to seek to remain a constituent member of the Anglican Communion should the Instruments of Unity allow such diocesan association.”
The Archbishop has expressed in section 25 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” his strong hope that “elements” [dioceses?] will adopt the Covenant. I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections. (If it means we need to withdraw from a lawsuit we withdraw from a lawsuit). Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that’s too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010.
You need to know that the Anglican Communion Development Committee has already had its first meeting and will begin this fall to vigorously establish relationships with a broad array of Provinces across the Communion. You have heard me speak of this often, including during my Bishop’s Address last March. This still strikes me as one of the most important activities we should pursue. We can work with several of the Provinces within the Communion, and, if they are so inclined to partner with us, we should work with GAFCON and ACNA from within TEC to further gospel initiatives.
I believe we are as financially strong, and as spiritually and theologically unified as any conservative diocese left in TEC. We have I believe the resources to focus on the mission and ministry within the diocese of South Carolina as well as working within TEC to shore up and encourage the faithful; and at the same time to help shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century. Admittedly, this is a tall order. Though accurate statistics are hard to come by I believe there are still more theologically orthodox believers still inside of TEC than have left. Yet they seem increasingly isolated, with few leaders to encourage them. I believe we have a moral and spiritual call/obligation to stay in the fight with those still in TEC who look to us for hope; and to stay for as long as it is within our consciences to do so. On this last caveat, clearly the clock for many of us is loudly ticking. Few of us doubt there will be a strong push to make what is now de facto, de jure in GC2012. Along with this the number of partnered GLBT priests””and quite likely bishops will continue to increase (given the recent nominees in Episcopal elections in Minnesota and Los Angeles)””putting facts on the ground which the rest of us have to react to or deal with as best we can. As events unfold it will be necessary for us to put risky facts on the ground as well.
Concluding Thoughts
But before I conclude I need to address a sensitive issue. Should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care I will work with them toward that end. Please know this is not my desire for any parish. It would grieve me because I have enjoyed my relationship with every congregation in this great Diocese of South Carolina. Still these are challenging times, and if I am called to lead in such an assertive manner as I have suggested here, pastoral sensitivity suggests I should give space to those who feel they need it. I hope all can recognize in the things I have addressed above the three marks of the church recognized in Evangelical Anglicanism””1) Proclamation of the Word of God; 2) the sacraments duly administered; 3) order and discipline (Art. XIX)””yet there is that fourth mark (that to which Bishop and Martyr Nicholas Ridley referred, echoing of course St. Paul in I Corinthians 13; Galatians 5:22 and nurtured in the life of the church by the Holy Spirit), 4) the mark of charity, without which we are noisy gongs and clanging cymbals. And then for most of us there’s the one I just mentioned, 5) the beneficence of the historic episcopate.
I must address another thing under the rubric of love””and in this I follow the lead of Lambeth 1.10, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I trust with the Church Catholic around the world: we are not to be in this Diocese about the business of encouraging prejudice or denying the dignity of any person, including, but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, or Transgender. As those who know me well will acknowledge, it grieves me that so much of the battle has been waged here, and if the full story were to be told I believe that many who understand themselves through these categories wish it were not as well. No, we have no business fostering unexamined prejudice; so few of us are free from scars of sexual brokenness. Rather, we are constrained by the love of Christ to be primarily about the task of proclaiming the Gospel””calling all people to repentance””ourselves included; administering the sacraments; encouraging faithfulness in the body of Christ; and through the power of the Holy Spirit walking with charity in the world.
It is an increasingly fluid landscape in which we are called to do our work and at times seems to change from week to week as developments take place on several fronts. While our principles may stay consistent our strategy must be dynamic and provisional. To this end the Standing Committee and I are calling for a Special Convention of this diocese to be held on Saturday, October 24th at Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant. As bishop I am asking every parish and mission to call a congregational meeting to broadly engage these matters and to inform the delegates who will represent them at this upcoming convention. I am also asking every deanery to engage these challenges at a clericus level and in deanery meetings for clergy and lay delegates. Frankly, I don’t know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity. What I have stated here is only a start””the turning of the ship. While striving to stay as intact as possible””we need believers who are informed, engaged, missional and faithful.
For now our task is clear: As some within TEC are busy cutting the cords of fellowship with the larger Church through the unilateral actions of General Convention expanding policies which further tear the fabric of the Communion; our task will be to weave and braid missional relationships which strengthen far flung dioceses and provinces in the work of the gospel. As some in TEC find a hopeless refuge in the narrower restrictions of denominational autonomy, we shall find hope in a deeper and generous catholicity. In our pursuit of these principles I remind you of where I began in this address””Bishop Smith’s eschewing of a fatal security which he feared would end “in shame, in misery and ruin.” He refused such a comfortable course and in time it led him to risk””and to lose everything. This may one day come to us. For now what lies before us is to engage this challenge with all the will and resources of strong and growing diocese. With the clarity of God’s call, the courage to walk in step with the Spirit, and the confidence of an overruling Providence in, with and through Christ, we shall not only endure, but prevail. I leave now with this””we cannot choose to follow God without following what God has chosen for us. So, “Lead kindly, Light.” Amen.
Please could people labor most strenuously to focus their comments on what Bishop Lawrence actually says and argues for–many thanks–KSH.
Wow, perhaps there are still bishops in the Episcopal Church with both original thought and depth. I was taken most by his novel arguments in the section “The Appropriateness of Godly Boundaries—Withdrawal.” He seems to be arguing for Nullification of Resolutions (and perhaps canon law as well, though he is vague on that) within the borders of the diocese that contradict scripture, tradition, the mind of the greater Communion, and TEC’s own canons/catechism, etc.
I find that a very interesting notion in itself, but also the fact that is comes, ironically, from the Diocese of South Carolina, that used John C Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification by states to nullify any federal law not in line with its own constitution and statutes. While a very interesting premise that I do not necessarily disagree with, I think by involving that term of nullification with its historical American political baggage, I fear he may have done damage to his argument as a whole.
Well done, Bishop Lawrence! Is this not a blueprint for Sarah Hey’s “third way”? I certainly hope we in Dallas can take courage and leadership from this. I can’t help thinking of “…for such a time as this….” when it comes to +Mark Lawrence.
I sure hope this is the third way because it sounds exactly like what SEAD, ACI and CP have been working on for many moons now! Good for Bishop Lawrence. We are at present planning a major international conference on canon law and hierarchy, to be held in Dallas. +Mark is speaking exactly of the kind of differentiation that must be plotted out and executed, and the work on this has been going on for some time now. GenConv helpfully clarified things, and the ever-more-implausible declarations from the PB may well backfire in their overreach. I doubt even ‘liberal’ bishops want to become subordinate units in a national denomination.
Someone had to take a stand, and he very courageously has taken it. Now it remains to be seen what Schori and Company will do in reaction to his speech, and I think the answer will come shortly. We need to keep +Mark Lawrence and his diocese in our prayers.
PS–It is important to maintain some representation in official meetings–duly altered because of the deteriorated state of affairs–so as to be on record as opposed, and to signal that one has not gone off to sulk. Let a priest and layman attend and take notes. It helps send a message that things are rotten, and it maintains one’s right to attend.
I think what I appreciate about +Lawrence’s approach (and I find in contrast to what Dr. Seitz says has been worked on for many moons now) is a clear call to differentiation, some type of action, i.e. “Godly Boundaries, withdrawal,” AND a gracious and charitable attitude toward GAFCON and ACNA. That is something different from what comes down to the layperson from ACI and CP. I do think that providentially the leadership exercised in time by ++Duncan and +Lawrence, given in their different but no less clarifying ways, will work together for a healthy and united future Anglicanism in North America.
we shall find hope in a deeper and generous catholicity
Amen. Prayers still rising for the Diocese of South Carolina – and my thanks to Bishop Lawrence for words filled with encouragment, hope and courage.
What we will be seeing unfold in greater intensity is the argument that General Convention is the authority, and the dioceses are subordinate to it. The entire logic of the work of ACI has been to oppose this, show it to be historically false, and insist on the integrity of the diocese/bishop, and the links to the Communion in consequence. The word ‘differentiation’ is one we have used unceasingly, we have insisted that dioceses need to guard their sovereignty, and oppose efforts at changing the polity or subordinating Bishops. McCall’s labors on this front are prodigious and essential. ACNA had a different notion. It is however crucial to maintain cordial relations at this present time. With that I concur. The effort to become a replacement province will have its own very special challenges.
What Bishop Lawrence said about the laity really struck me. The church has done such a poor job of teaching the faith in the past – that has made this “Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity” possible. All of us should be seeking ways to arm ourselves better in this struggle. Those of us who do not have orthodox rectors should find ways to proceed without that guidance.
I look forward to standing with Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina as we find the described place to thrive. I look forward to the challenges presented and the direction to be followed. I pray for the upcoming convention and all the preparations that will occur in our parishes and deaneries in preparation for this holy event.
Theology has been a scary word for many lay members of the church but it is time for every member of our churches to understand the holy ground upon which we stand.
Alas, I wonder how long it will take for Bishop Lawrence to be inhibited and then deposed due to: 1) abandonment of communion, 2) conduct unbecoming, or 3) some vague violation of the constitutions and canon’s. I’m specifically worried about the “I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with “orthodox†congregations isolated across North Americaâ€. All this will take is a bishop of one of those isolated congregations to issue a pastoral directive to forbid any sort of non-approved contact with SC. Further, those bishop(s) and the Presiding Bishop could view this encouragement by Bishop Lawrence as somehow conducting “border crossingsâ€.
I haven’t read any of the HOB/D Listerve e-mails yet today, but I can almost guarantee that this has already been suggested. As Bishop Lawrence pointed out, many view this as a justice issue, and those that do (and they now hold the reigns of power in the national structure) will not brook any interference in the “baptism = all rights and privileges of the churchâ€.
In Texas, why don’t we not borrow ahead?
The statement is well-crafted and clear. It’s a beautiful piece of work, showing that there’s still very intelligent life, and good theology, left in TEC.
Cennydd, there’s so much clarity here that the PB and those who think like her cannot really do anything right now, other than to wish that he hadn’t made this speech.
#11, inhibition and deposition would make Bp. Lawrence a martyr. They dare not touch this diocese.
What he needs is for his clergy and laity to come in solid behind him, and what he has said today, even though they don’t agree with what some of the other dioceses are doing and saying.
Hopefully, the fine folks of ACNA will likewise realize that they need to stay away from DioSC, concentrating their efforts in the areas where they are needed.
I would like to hear a couple of other dioceses, at least, fall into step with Bishop Lawrence.
SC is in a unique situation because of the nearby presence of AMIA and REC in goodly numbers. Let’s consider the possibility that sensitivity to this situation compels BOTH +Lawrence and ++Duncan to proceed slowly with respect to SC’s ACNA membership.
subscribing for now
Intercessor
The dioceses which comprise CP do indeed need all to come together and as +Mark indicated, he has been in conversation with them. The diocesan canons in each diocese need to be coordinated in certain key ways, in our view, especially if as said above we continue to see efforts by the PB and her Council of Advice to invent a polity where she has a kind of super-metropolitical authority. Albany, SC, CFL, Dallas, W-LA, W-TX, ND and many others will remain much stronger if allied. The suits have been state by state and diocese by diocese, and they would be much harder from a national church standpoint–as Conger has recently written, it had been the policy of previous PB’s to stay out of diocesan affairs re: property–if dioceses were allied and coordinated. As the stakes get higher, new initiatives will need hard work.
This is a bold, but risky move. I hope it works. In response to Sherrie2 (12). I think there will be a strong counter attack by TEC and although we shouldn’t borrow trouble, it needs to be recognized and prepared for. Both by those in SC and those outside routing for them.
Albany, SC, CFL, Dallas, W-LA, W-TX, ND and many others will remain much stronger if allied.
I hope they see it this way, too. The words about “fatal security” – the warning there is something we all need to hear. “Fatal security” in the past brought us to this point.
Perhaps I should have said in response to #14, they *are already* in step. There has been a considerable amount of serious exchange, meeting, discussion, and hard thinking from the CP Bishops, and that continues as of this moment. Dioceses reflect different local realities. Clearly SC was/is facing a concern from some about ACNA, and so a special day was called. Others do not have this specific challenge or do not have it in as pressing a form (re: Steve Wood et al). But all the CP dioceses have discussed exactly the sorts of things that +Mark L here is bringing forth, and many would say they are already where +Mark is: differentiated, unwilling to accept changes in polity, and prepared to fight for that.
That said, perhaps the real discussion about SC will be had when we hear how the afternoon session has gone. Others have pointed out that the AMiA reality remains a touchy matter, and +Mark himself speaks of lawsuits being dropped. So SC has its own specific challenges and +Mark is not sidestepping them but addressing them.
Thanks for that clarification, Dr. Seitz. May God bless those who are considering these words and may their hearts be open to working together on the way forward.
I wish the bishop and diocese well.
I have long questioned what the “Oath of Conformity” means. When I took it almost 47 years ago, there was on my part a naive assumption that “this Church” would remain within the mainstream of biblical and traditional Christian doctrine, discipline and worship. Of course, back then it was conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church had received them. It does not seem to me that, as is now claimed by TEC’s leadership, to mean that I am eternally vowed to follow doctrines invented by those leaders which clearly are contradictory to what was the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received by PECUSA in 1962. It is irrational for someone to vow to conform to God only knows what might come forth from General Convention or 815 or even the local bishop decades later. I have the same problem with the business of “unqualified assent” that is “irrevocable”. How can any rational group give such assent to something that is unknowable at the time? (Not to mention, South Carolina didn’t have to give that assent to be in union with General Convention–which the Diocese of South Carolina created).
I don’t think Bishop Lawrence will be deposed for some breach of discipline or worship. That would require a trial which would become really, really nasty and a horrendous PR catastrophe for 815. I think even the PB recognizes that much. There might be an attempt to inhibit and depose for “abandonment of communion”–perhaps even before the October meeting of the diocese–as in the case of Bishop Duncan. But I suspect she’ll hesitate there as well because it would surely drive the diocese out of TEC and probably several other dioceses as well. We’ll see. TEC needs another law suit like it needs a hole in the head.
Dropping the existing lawsuit, particularly if they resolve it in a way that defies Schori’s recent directive’s, would be a powerful example. I pray that South Carolina’s rectors choose to stand behind Mark Lawrence, but if any still feel compelled by conscious to leave for ACNA, I pray that the situation is dealt with with love and charity by all sides involved. Bishop Lawrence is a not a false teacher to be ignored or resisted, unlike the Bishop Lee’s, Bruno’s etc. of the world.
Dropping the lawsuit… I think we found the excuse for the “abandonment of communion†charge. Of course he is just thinking about it now, but as with ++Duncan, TEC is fully justified in deposing someone for thinking about doing something TEC doesn’t approve, not waiting for them to actually doing it.
#22 and #23 very astute posts. Dallas and CFL have looked closely at their own diocesan canons, as they both have accession language, and they have edited them. ACI has urged uniformity on this matter. But, logically, the idea of an ‘unqualified accession’ is slightly barmy, as you indicate (unless one is in the Cosa Nostra, as one comment put it). We have always held that charging +SC or +Dallas or +CFL with abandonment would be a real mess, a PR nightmare, and would rouse support from the Communion in no uncertain terms. Creating a top-down national denomination akin to UMC is no easy matter, when it runs up against the reality of Bishops in Communion — not subordinates in a line-hierarchy. Interesting point about Pawley’s Island and the timing of the recent PB edict. Not sure if that is simply fortuitous. Blessings #21.
In anticipation of today’s clergy gathering in South Carolina, from which I knew that I would be unavoidably absent, I found myself returning again and again in my own thoughts and prayers to the words and the Word expressed in last Sunday’s epistle (Ephesians 4:24 – 5:2) concerning what might be called ecclesiological manners, whether in first century Ephesus or in twenty-first century Anglicanism. In such perspective, Bishop Lawrence seems to have been inspired, in God’s good providence, to apply such ecclesiological manners in a creative and constructive way to the conundrum at hand. I pray that my fellow South Carolina clergy, and forthcoming conventions of the diocese, may be similarly led. By God’s grace as well as with both Bishop Lawrence’s and Bishop Iker’s permission, I am as a “retired†priest still canonically resident in South Carolina honored to continue serving as one of Bishop Lawrence’s Examining Chaplains (and an at-large member of his Anglican Communion Development Committee), whilst also at present ministering part-time in an ACNA-affiliated diocese and parish in Fort Worth. As indeed Bishop Lawrence implies in his address, this new form of Anglican anomalousness is proving to be a fruitful way to keep relationships and mission open to the Spirit, without aggressive border crossing! Whatever that same Spirit brings out of today’s deliberations, Bishop Lawrence has my heartfelt gratitude and loyalty as South Carolina plays its unique role in the emergence a reformed Anglicanism (to include, God willing, a reformed See of Canterbury) for the twenty-first century. Already, the clarity with which South Carolina has dissociated itself from the implicit – and, pace Philip Turner, in places more than implicit! – apostasy within TEC’s leadership has changed the landscape. By taking the kind of stand Bishop Lawrence recommends, even though remaining TEC-connected at certain strategic levels, South Carolina is indeed doing something that is more than merely symbolic in the sense meant by Flannery O’Connor when she said in reference to the Eucharist: “If it’s only a symbol, I say to hell with it!†Lead on, my Bishop.
William McKeachie
Dean Emeritus of South Carolina
Subscribing for now to catch up
The National Church is already fully involved with their own lawyers present at the various property suits around the country.
Hello William, welcome to Texas. Glad +Mark is so ably addressing these matters. The ability to differentiate needs to be tested right down the line, as we have held all along. The idea of creating a new kind of episcopal denomination was always going to run into problems of historical precedence, execution, and so forth — if Bishops would hold the line and defend the polity of this church and refuse to cooperate with innovations. I agree with the sober comments above which also point out how hard it is to do anything with someone who holds to this way of proceeding. One can imagine all kinds of nightmare scenarios, of course, but in reality, +Mark and his colleague Bishops in CP understand that the PB is overreaching and will struggle to deal with a reality like the one unfolding in diocesan contexts. This is also why the TEC presence at Jamaica tried so hard to derail Section 4 (Chew, Gomez, Radner et al’s hard work). It upholds the integrity of the diocese at a time when Council of Advice-TEC seems bent on dismantling that.
Meant to conclude: so let the Dioceses cooperate and hold the line, and may +Chew and others see to a section 4 that emerges intact. There is much to pray for here. +RDW may have said things some did not like and not enough for others, but clearly he sees that the Communion will collapse if we have nothing but autonomy overload from a ‘GenConv church.’ Good for +Mark.
#3 Dr Seitz, I hear a distinct difference between ACI and what Bp Lawrence has said here. One of the challenges that ACI has is that it has sought to work behind the scenes and under the radar: it has specifically been researching possibilities and laying down the groundwork. That has been and remains a critical ministry.
Bp Lawrence on the other hand has today issued a challenge and a call to action that many of us have been waiting for. One of the most attractive things about the new Province has been that they have rallied the troops–I dare say the CP Bishops and Rectors have not. Maybe they have and I have missed it; maybe they have tried and their calls have fallen on deaf ears. But as I have read the good stuff that has come out of ACI and CP, I have so often felt disappointed that the papers have failed to carry through to their logical extension.
I remember reading one of McCall’s essays about the rights of the individual dioceses and nearly fell off my chair–he had laid out a legal case to do exactly what the Four had done, but then he (or ACI) pulled back from drawing out the obvious conclusion. No call to arms; no rallying the troops; no invitation to action.
Bp Lawrence’s address however does call us to action and sets out a daring proposal. I need to study it–but my first reaction is to cut and past it into a resolution for this CP diocese!
In all fairness to you, ACI and CP, Bp Lawrence has the unique opportunity to speak today that you and others may not yet have had–he too has waited for the right time to speak, after Convention, where having been elected twice because of the PB required the Canons to be followed to the letter, he watched the HOB them give themselves permission to violate the same Canons. One is Apollos, another Barnabas, and yet another Paul–each called by God for a related but different ministry.
Thanks–my only point was that what +Mark Lawrence is here addressing–due to pressures in his context–has long been discussed and processed by CP bishops. Many would even say that what is here being done by SC, they are already doing (declaring their sovereignty and drafting canons to underscore this). What differentiates SC is that it has not had to manage the departures in the same way as many other CP dioceses. So that issue is now raising its head in a specific way. ACI does not have any Episcopal leverage and its efforts must be attached to working Bishops. Because that work goes on all the time, we do not make ‘rallying statements’. And by all means, cut and paste away! We urge the CP Bishops on all the time, including +Mark! Grace and peace.
Thanks, Chris, #29. Whatever quarrels or quibbles some may have had with ACI’s patiently analytical and reflective approach to TEC, your recent work in exposing the falsehood of TEC’s hegemonic denominationalism is the single most important and transforming development in exposing TEC’s perfidy in a way that the Communion at large can see and understand. Speaking personally, it matters very little to me either as a disciple of our Lord or as a priest of His church what my “denominational” affiliation is; but it matters a lot to be in godly union and concord with brothers and sisters in Christ under the authority of a faithful bishop in Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
William McKeachie
Could someone please clarify something for me? All of the comments above seem to assume the bishop means for DioSC to remain within TEC but be more “differentiated.” However, this remark seems to me to mean something quite different in the longer run:
“The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions.”
If one withdraws from General Convention, one has withdrawn from the Episcopal Church. GenCon IS TEC. It has no existence otherwise. Withdrawing from GenCon is precisely what Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Quincy did to leave TEC, and it got our bishops deposed by PB Schori. Is this really what ACI has been in favor of, Dr. Seitz?
Dr. Seitz,
While Dallas has edited its accession clause it can only be enacted with a 2/3 diocesan majority vote. That is very unlikely in Dallas and I fear that unless there is similar clarity from the Bishop several more churches will “shift” dramatically. I have begun to hear of laypeople writing to +ABC saying they’ve been patient long enough and the three year cycle of GenCon disruption by shock and awe of what passed and what didn’t has gone on too long. Others are seriously considering the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the conservatives in Dallas consider the editing of accession clause a moot point because the facts on the ground will have changed so significantly by the time the diocese ever decides to do something about it.
From Dean McKeachie:
“Speaking personally, it matters very little to me either as a disciple of our Lord or as a priest of His church what my “denominational†affiliation is; but it matters a lot to be in godly union and concord with brothers and sisters in Christ under the authority of a faithful bishop in Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”
AMEN.
31…exactly. The Communion Partners, and the Windsor Bishops before them, have consistently failed to step up to the plate in any meaningful way. The question is, will they now? And if the answer is yes, what indication do we have to support such a prediction?
+Lawrence has articulated a way forward, but Duncan and others before him did the same and found themselves out on a limb with saw marks already on it. Will +Mark now find himself as those who went before him?
Will Love, Howe, Stanton, Doyle, McPherson, Smith, and Lillibridge now join their voices with +Mark’s? Or have the stepped out of the room for the moment, or perchance gone off on sabbatical?
Will they at long last take a stand that is not mitigated by peace mongering within their own dioceses or that reflects compromise with Schori, differing to her a power she does not have?
This is a Grand Slam home run in my book. Bishop Lawrence does a great job here of articulating the problems of the Episcopal Church, and he indicates his desire not to fully leave the Episcopal Church, but to distance himself from its actions. I see this as a temporary measure, sort of a place to be at this particular time – while leaving it completely open to the continued changing landscape within both TEC and the Anglican Communion. As far as I am concerned, this is a textbook example of what differentiated leadership should look like.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY – you do not hear the same disdain for those who felt called by God to go ahead and take bold actions for the sake of Biblical orthodoxy as you do from some of the other orthodox faithful within TEC. Most of the people I know have that have left TEC did not do so in oreder to run away from the problem of human sexuality. We all know it is out there and prevalent in our society. Instead, they have left in order to take the fight where it should be – in the secular world, where battles are constantly being fought for the souls of the people. Consequently, every ounce of time and energy that we spend trying to correct the ills of the Episcopal Church is an ounce of time and energy that we are taking away from the real battle in the battlefield where it really should be fought. The purpose of the Church is to support the warriors in that battle, not to tear them down. It is my hope that all those in SC, as well as the other CP dioceses, will see GAFCON and the ACNA as partners in that battle, even though the two are ecclesiastically in two different places.
I am also thankful to this bishop for his humbleness in allowing those who feel like they need to leave for conscience reasons to do so with his love. This is the truly pastoral approach, and it is my hope that other bishops in TEC will follow his lead, rather than ruling in a totalitarian fashion with iron fists.
You can bet the Word of the Day at 815 is “inhibition.” It remains to be seen whether TGC’s senior bishops would go along with it, but as we all know lack of inhibition is no barrier to deposition (no matter what the Canons say).
The nuclear option still remains…
39…And it is that inhibition that would force SC to have to finally leave TEC and join ACNA, and you can bet Schori knows that.
On another level, she is hard to read: does she like the fight (it appears so) and do these sorts of pronouncement give her opporunty and serve her purpose of theological cleansing?
Good question, 40. I think Schori’s a scorched-earther who cares not one whit about those she’s driving from her organization, as she considers them to be troglodytes anyway. She’s interested in the fixed assets and how they can be leveraged. Her primary concern will be whether she has a war chest deep enough to successfully prosecute a lawsuit against a diocese like SC. At the moment, I don’t think she does, so inhibition may well come later, after she trumps up some phony charge against +Lawrence.
God bless +SC for articulating so cogently the theological and canonical heresies of TEC. In a universe better than this, the ABC would issue a statement of support for +SC and the other truly faithful still remaining in TEC. He would also bless +SC’s willingness to work with his Anglican brothers and sisters in GAFCON and ACNA. Alas, however, we live in a broken world. While the PB may not immediately seek to inhibit +SC, I cannot believe that she and her legal henchmen or, for that matter, the ultrareappraising wing of TEC, will permit Bishop Lawrence to continue to voice the historic faith, and to assist others who declare that faith too.
[Three recent comments have been deleted. Please follow Canon Harmon’s request at the head of this thread to stick to what Bishop Lawrence said rather than speculate off topic – Elf]
25. Seitz-ACI wrote:
[blockquote]#22 and #23 very astute posts. Dallas and CFL have looked closely at their own diocesan canons, as they both have accession language, and they have edited them. ACI has urged uniformity on this matter. But, logically, the idea of an ‘unqualified accession’ is slightly barmy, as you indicate (unless one is in the Cosa Nostra, as one comment put it). [/blockquote]
“Slightly barmy” is an understatement!
Apparently what TEC requires of clergy is that we “check our brains in at the door” and of whole dioceses that they and their descendants “check their brains in at the door” from ages to ages, would without end. Amen.
God’s truth is whatever the most recent General Convention has declared God and her truth to be.
#35–I am unaware of the clause not having already been altered. #34–see my remarks above about sending representation in an altered form. But withdrawing from GenConv means the equivalent of the four dioceses? I should not think so. But ask someone in SC. If that is what they wanted to do, they would have joined ACNA presumably. ACI has consistently worked to find a form of differentiation, based upon our understanding of the catholic character of anglicanism, in communion, as against the denominationalism being now asserted in TEC.
#37–Love, Stanton, Howe, et al have been in conversation with Mark for some time, and CP is well aware of the dynamics governing individual dioceses, and respective challenges. It is not as though +Mark did something and now waits for others to join him — unless he has some plan he has not heretofore shared with us all! All of these actions are being taken with full knowledge within CP.
#31, Loren. ACI was responsible for the work that has brought bishops together, in concert with their own labours, back as far as 2002. I chaired most of the Windsor meetings. Ephraim is on the CDG. We remain in constant conversation with various key figures in the UK, and with +Mouneer, +Chew, +Ntahoturi, +Idowu-Fearon, and all of the work has been undertaken with as wide a consultation as is humanly possible. CP was an undertaking that involved from the beginning a very wide circle of informed discussion, around the world. This thread is not about ACI of course, and my concern is simple: to see +Mark’s activity today as in continuity with previous work, and to keep as wide a circle of influence as possible. People who want to second guess this or that Bishop simply do not know how hard it has been to get something like coordinated and sustained episcopal support — and that is now beginning to happen after many years of hard labour.
Grace and peace. And thanks to +Mark for his work today, and for all those with him in SC, many good friends.
Incidentally, Bruce Garner has launched a long, blistering attack on Bishop Lawrence’s statement over on the HoB/D list. (Surprise, surprise). Perhaps we can add that to the list of heresies. I wasted my time sending a point by point response to him.
Ann Fontaine tried to stir up trouble, but Kendall nipped that one in the bud.
This is an admirable, inspiring, visionary speech. It’s likely to go down in history as a significant turning point in this fight not only for the soul of Anglicanism but for the soul of western civilization. This is no uncertain bugle call. Now we’ll see how the troops rally for the battle ahead.
Bravo, +Lawrence! Well done. This is truly a [b]”bold response”[/b], as promised, to the outrageous actions of Gen Con and the intolerable direction in which TEC as a whole (and western culture as a whole) has been drifting. I wasn’t expecting SC to seek to bolt from TEC. But this amounts to a dramatic call to arms and a much more proactive role in the fight than any CP diocese has displayed up until now. I’m encouraged.
There’s so much in this speech with far-reaching implications, so much that cries out for amplification and explication in terms of how this proposed policy will be worked out in practice, but I’d simply like to register my gratitude here for the remarkable mix of strong, courageous leadership and astute strategic judgment that +Mark Lawrence is displaying. Although I can’t speak for the ACNA, as a fervent supporter of the new, fledgling province and as a priest fully committed to the wider GAFCON/FCA movment, I welcome this ringing call for SC to take the lead in building a much stronger, better mobilized, allioance of churches and dioceses around the country that will help pioneer the whole new kind of Anglicanism called for in the 21st century. Participation in the New Reformation isn’t reserved for those of us in the ACNA. The Culture War must be fought on many fronts.
SC has become the new Gondor. Let Rohan and all the allies of orthodoxy gather in its defense. The battle isn’t just an institutional struggle against a corrupt cabal that has taken over TEC. We are facing a much more insidious and pervasive threat. This is also an ideological/theological battle against the dominant Big Lie of our time, what +Lawrence calls “the false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity,” and I tend to call simply “relativism.” 815 is Isengard, not Mordor. And the traitorous PB isn’t the Dark Lord, but only a minor Saruman-like figure, though she isn’t nearly as wise as that wizard. After all, we fight not against flesh and blood…
Although of course, I’d have been pleased if +SC had choseen to urge realignment with the ACNA, I wasn’t really expecting that. So I’m not disappointed. In fact, this bold, far-sighted call to action exceeds my hopes. And after watching +Lawrence over the last couple years, my hopes have been continually rising, and were pretty high.
Yes, this splendid speech is a home run. But one home run in the early innings doesn’t mean that the ball game has been won. Now the struggle commences in SC with a whole new level of intensity. Good for them.
David Handy+
[Comment deleted by Elf – please do not argue with our decisions]
[Comment deleted by Elf]
[While we understand that views are being strongly expressed at the moment our comment policy remains that posts which are off thread, ad hominem, intemperately expressed or which instruct readers to leave one church or join another [however expressed], or argue with the decisions of the Elves will be edited or deleted and commenters may be subject to comment moderation prior to posting or in extreme repeat cases removal of posting privileges. Unfortunately we also sometimes have to edit comments which refer to or include part of a deleted comment. We ask please for your cooperation with keeping T19 a safe and informative place for Christian debate on issues – Elf]
Bp. Lawrence’s thoughts are highly informative for those beyond the Anglican Communion as well, especially for us ELCA Lutherans who may well have to confront similar options in a couple weeks. In that regard, I’d be interested to know how folks here interpret these sentences from Bp. Lawrence’s address:
[blockquote]I believe we have a moral and spiritual call/obligation to stay in the fight with those still in TEC who look to us for hope; and to stay for as long as it is within our consciences to do so. On this last caveat, clearly the clock for many of us is loudly ticking. Few of us doubt there will be a strong push to make what is now de facto, de jure in GC2012. Along with this the number of partnered GLBT priests—and quite likely bishops will continue to increase (given the recent nominees in Episcopal elections in Minnesota and Los Angeles)—putting facts on the ground which the rest of us have to react to or deal with as best we can. As events unfold it will be necessary for us to put risky facts on the ground as well.[/blockquote]
Truly, this is the ‘shot heard round the world.’ Hurrah! for his emphasis– made for those who would remain in the TEC– upon discomfort, sacrifice and the need to embrace the coming fight. And the same cheers for his linkage of a lives,fortunes and sacred-honor struggle to the preservation of the religion we have received from our Fathers, and to the general consequences should we let that patrimony slip away. I envy those who live in South Carolina. As a Virginian, I mourn that our own go-along TEC bishops, and most of our clergy, took refuge in what will prove to be “fatal security.”
I would follow up #40 by suggesting that– since Mark Lawrence is laying it all on the line– it’s time for many T19 contributors, especially those still in TEC, and especially those in the clergy– to do the same by using their real names so they can be counted. (This in no way suggests that using my full name is any brave act. I’m just an old retired Fed).
Sorry– I meant to follow up on #49, not #40.
#48 Lutheran Visitor
(I also posted this on StandFirm)
In part of his speach he states ” As events unfold it will be necessary for us to put risky facts on the ground as well.” I think part of the strategy is to sign the Covenant right now as a diocese, before TEC can say a diocese can’t and before the Anglican Communion says only proviences can.
NRA (44): I always enjoy your posts!
Still, I’m not sure we’re out of Book 2 yet. If, as you wisely say, 815 is Isengard and the PB is Saruman, then perhaps SC is really Rohan? I think it’s the battle for Helm’s Deep we’re preparing for now. We’ve still got a long way to go before Gondor can be saved!
How does a person subscribe to the HOBD listserve?
Bishop Mark Lawrence has given a thoughtful, measured, astute, invigorating and wise clarion call to remain and fight for biblical orthodoxy which is recognisably Anglican. His address is likely to resound around the Anglican Communion. Many thanks, Mark.
Thanks to Graham Kings (have you been consecrated yet?) for his forthright #55. I trust this marvelous speech will indeed resound around the AC.
Thanks also to Robert A. (#53) for your kind words. There are no exact parallels, of course, between Tolkien’s the LOTR and our fierce conflict in Anglicanism, but I accept as a friendly amendment your proposal that SC is more like Rohan and even Helm’s Deep, the place where the battle with the armies of Isengard will be fought. I actually think that for us Anglicans, Gondor isn’t really a place, not even Canterbury itself, but an elusively distinct way of being Christian that in enshrined more in the BCP and the “historic epscopate” than in a single bishopric, no matter how historically renowned it might be. And personally, I’m strongly tempted to say that for us, the all-powerful, corrupting Ring of Power is likewise an elusive concept, i.e., the dream of a Christian civilization on earth (in this age) that is inherent in the tempting mirage of “Christendom.”
Finally, I also thank Dr. Seitz for actively participating in this thread and making several helpful clarifying comments. I don’t think the ACI/CP/SC approach will work apart from the ACNA and the wider FCA movement. But I suspect the opposite is also true, and that the ACNA won’t succeed either, without the heroic sorts of sacrificial efforts that +Lawrence is calling for from within the current structures of the AC.
David Handy+
Kendall–Might there be a report on any further insights/clarifications coming out of the discussion time with the bishop?
I hope that all will prayerfully consider our tendency toward dichotomous thinking, which is too common in matters as provocative as this. Many of us in ACNA are by no means sulking. Sulking, by definition, means a silent or brooding withdrawal, and I have witnessed little or none of this among either ACNA or CP, etc. Help me if I missed the point as I am inclined often to do.
Frankly, many of us in ACNA are so busy with growing congregations (btw, few former TEC members are coming across), which we seek properly to catechize in all aspects of the Anglican ethos, we have no time to sit around and pout. At the same time, whether or not one concurs with Bishop Lawrence’s approach, we should recognize, respect, and encourage Episcopal courage of this kind. I have never met him, but Lawrence gives every indication of personal holiness, and his actions reflect an abiding passion for his flock. What more dare we ask of him? We are praying for him and the diocese.
Conscience has dictated different paths in the current storm, but the more we try to understand each other at this time the easier we are able later to unite. Restoration may not sound especially fetching to some, but in due course we must revisit Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer and ask ourselves what, precisely, our Lord demands of us.
David, that is exactly what I was about to say…+Mark calls for a working together of SC, GAFCON, and ACNA, and we ignore that call at great peril.
It is refreshing and hopeful to hear this posture articulated so clearly by someone who is otherwise holding a variation of the ACI plan.
The recreation of a vital Anglicanism, now devastated by TEC nationally and yet flourishing in isolated places like SC and CANA, is dependent on the collegiality and cooperation and recognition of one another’s faithfulness and orthodoxy.
What worries about Seitz-ACI, and I don’t know for whom he really speaks, although he seems to be talking with everyone by his own account, is that there is a dismissiveness of ACNA that is contrary to +Mark’s call.
In the midst of this long battle there is a real danger that we identify our proposals with ourselves instead of a larger conciliar process, and thereby begin to possess and advocate in a way that forgets the very nature of the church and God’s own providence and lordship over his Church…in other words the solution becomes ours and glorifies us, and gives us power…instead of our thoughts being combined with the inspirations of others all moved by the Spirit for the Glory of Christ’s own body, his church.
That’s my concern…
I am not dismissive of ACNA. Its fate is simply very complicated and it is not a project I am involved in. There was a time when meetings of Bishops and Archbishops involved Bishops now in ACNA, but a decision was made by some to go a different way and ACNA was birthed. That is a fact. What will happen in the future is beyond our knowing. Obviously I am not the Bishop of SC and so not in a position to commend ACNA within the context of his office and responsibility. AMiA is part of ACNA as I understand it, and its place there is complex on its own face, due to its own integrity, etc. It has a major base in Pawley’s Island and had sought to plant churches in the diocese. Only +Mark and his colleagues (esp his Chancellor) can know the state of play on those issues. It would simply be foolish for someone like me to ‘commend ACNA’ in the SC context, as I know nothing about what is going on there. I pray things are resolving themselves. It is a diocese I have spent much time in. Because I have nothing to say about ACNA does not amount to my being dismissive, but to an effort at prudentiality.
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
While I don’t believe in tÏχη or any sort of ACNA “fate,” I understand and respect your position. Much of what I was saying applies to our folks as well as to other Anglican streams now seeking shelter and/or remedy.
I now understand that the earlier remark had nothing to do with those who withdrew and later entered ACNA. Most of us were, and remain, outspoken! 🙂 I very much appreciate your taking time to clarify. Prayerfully, bkt
You are very welcome, Briane. God bless.
I wish my own bishop had and could express such firm conviction and courage.
What is a ‘missional relationship’? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?