The Diocese of South Carolina needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church, its bishop said Thursday in an address to clergy meeting at St. James’ Church, James Island, Charleston, S.C.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, bishop since January 2008, did not urge the diocese to break all ties with The Episcopal Church.
Bishop Lawrence and the standing committee have called for a special convention on Oct. 24 to vote on proposals that Bishop Lawrence presented during the meeting. He and the standing committee discussed these proposals during a marathon meeting on July 28.
So how is withdrawing from [i]”the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church”[/i] (which must incl., by definition, General Convention) any different than what the former bishops of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and San Joaquin attempted ? At best, this sounds like a more politely-worded version of the same thing (a rose by any, other name…).
Answer to #1.
It seems to me, at first glance, that this means that the Diocese of South Carolina will maintain its ‘fraternal’ affiliation with the national church, but will retain its independent ‘responsibility and authority’ to manage its internal affairs as a diocese as discussed not too long ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And maybe avoid the immediate wrath of the Presiding Litigator?
[Comment deleted by Elf]
This would seem a very good time to engage with the governing bodies of TEC, rather than withdraw from them. Engagement by the much respected Bishop of that Diocese and his colleagues would do far more good than walking away or standing apart.
might be wise in a sense. It plays to the local people who consider TEC taboo. However, it keeps them in the game. +Mark can go to meetings if he wants. The diocese keeps its property. Progressives in the church don’t have any incentive to cause trouble.
RE: “This would seem a very good time to engage with the governing bodies of TEC, rather than withdraw from them.”
Right — because “engagement” at the repulsive General Convention did so much good. ; > ) Glad he and the deputation went — but that’s over, thank God, for them and they need never have to attend such a “governing body” again.
RE: “Engagement by the much respected Bishop of that Diocese and his colleagues would do far more good than walking away or standing apart.”
Conservatives certainly do respect Bishop Lawrence. Liberals — which overrun GC as well as so many other governing bodies — despise him and [i]hate everything he stands for[/i]. Sorry — but anyone who wishes to indulge in the fond fantasies of “respect” for traditional Christian thought in the governing bodies of the church at the national level simply does not know what he is talking about.
Elf – please correct me if I’m wrong that Bishop Lawrence made a spoken AND written vow not to leave the Episcopal Church when searching for the necessary consents? Or, is this blog going in the direction of others and not allowing for any input from those who disagree? I find this a relevant question to ask. Feel free to email me directly if you’d prefer and then delete this comment.
I think what the bishop is suggesting is that he would not participate in meetings of the House of Bishops and that SC would not participate in meetings of the Executive Council or send deputies to General Convention (not scheduled to meet again until 2012). I suspect it will also mean telling 815 that the checks will not be in the mail except for the ones to the Church Pension Fund and the like. It means South Carolina will declare “null and void” any resolution of General Convention, Executive Council or the Presiding Bishop that it deems contrary to Holy Scripture, the Creeds and the BCP. That is a well established principle of TEC governance, affirmed by every left wing diocese, bishop and priest which have been treating such as toothless for decades. It will not be joining ACNA or “submitting” to any other province of the Anglican Communion, but will remain in communion with the Anglican Communion. I suspect that some bishops and other clergy will be allowed to “enter the diocese” while others will not. It may subscribe to the current draft of the Anglican Covenant.
At the same time, South Carolina will follow the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and the Book of Common Prayer, which, as they currently exist do not proscribe any of the actions I’ve mentioned. The Constitution, Canons and BCP will be scrupulously observed–at least as they are currently, remembering that it will be 2012 before the Canons could be changed and 2015 before either the Constitution or the BCP could be changed.
By scrupulously observing the canons, no disciplinary action could be taken by the Presiding Bishop or House of Bishops. And by continuing to follow the Constitution and Canons and BCP and not submitting to some “foreign” province or ACNA, they could not be meaningfully charged with “abandonment of the communion of” TEC.
They would continue to operate as a diocese of TEC. They would operate under the “blessing” of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has stated that the diocese, not the province, is the basic “unit” of the Communion. (Note that he did not invite all bishops of all provinces to Lambeth 2008–notably the TEC Bishop of New Hampshire was not invited.)
I seriously doubt that 815 will attempt to “discipline” South Carolina or its bishop. I think they have more sense than that–but I could be mistaken. If the PB tries to pull the same stunt she pulled on Duncan, there will doubtless be a donnybrook in the House of Bishops, and she would drive South Carolina out of TEC–and probably several other dioceses as well. It would be a PR disaster for 815, and the law suits would literally drive TEC into bankruptcy.
Why would 815 “discipline” SC?
The bishop plays to the conservatives who think TEC is bound for damnation while accommodating the idea of being a faithful witness inside. Progressives in SC don’t feel as if they are being forced to abandon the church, either. Bishop Mark can be selective about who he’s seen with. He can find back door channels to get his voice heard. It’s probably not worthwhile for him to be publically so engaged. He can engage TEC discreetly, without conservatives haranguing him about who he’s seen with. If anything, it will give him a better platform to minister to gay people within the diocese.
We have a parish in the local TEC diocese which has done nothing official, but simply does not interact with the rest of the diocese. They consider themselves FIFNA, and pray for “our bishop Keith,” even when the “real bishop” comes around. Perhaps a similar model here?
The “conservative” and “liberal” labels used so “liberally” by people around here (e.g., comment no. 7) who self-label themselves as “conservatives” are utterly confusing to me. Could we dispense with these terms? They seem, at least in this context, to have been borrowed wholesale from secular American politics and have little value in discussing church issues.