For many years now, the clergy and lay leadership of St. Andrew’s Church have wrestled with the increasing tension between St. Andrew’s and The Episcopal Church caused by the decisions of The Episcopal Church to “walk apart” from both the biblical faith and the Anglican Communion. Throughout this time we have sought the Lord desiring to be prayerful and graceful in our response to the challenges presented to us by the actions of The Episcopal Church. And so in the late 1990’s we began a process of differentiation in which we took steps that have included the cessation of funding for the national church, and, more recently recognizing that we are in a state of broken communion with The Episcopal Church. The Vestry has continually sought to discern the Lord’s will for our place within the Anglican Communion, as well as our expressed relationship to The Episcopal Church. Twice in August the Vestry met for prayer, confession, repentance and conversation about this matter. The conclusion of this long, prayerful process is the unanimous sense that the entire parish of St. Andrew’s, Mt. Pleasant be invited into an intentional, parish-wide discernment process called, “40 Days of Discernment.” Joining the Vestry in this invitation are the Staff and former Senior Wardens of the parish dating back to 1989.
What is the problem? The most fundamental issue in conflict within The Episcopal Church is the gospel message itself. St. Paul spoke repeatedly of faithfully passing on that which he received. Great care was taken to ensure that the gospel message would be entrusted to those who would not add to nor subtract from The Story. In the three most recent General Conventions of The Episcopal Church (2003, 2006, 2009) the gospel message of a loving Father who seeks to draw all people unto Himself through the cross of His Son has been replaced. Offered instead is a therapeutic gospel which refuses to acknowledge the falleness of our nature and our deep need for spiritual and moral transformation. While this gospel appears kind in its inclusivity, it nevertheless leaves us unchanged and enslaved to our sins and is therefore unspeakably cruel.
note at the bottom how Steve has closed comments since this is a parish matter and not for the blogosphere. Err, well, it will be re posted on a number of sites like this one that do allow comments. and while I’m not going to speculate on what St. Andrew’s might choose, I am wondering if +Lawrence has made it clear that he would (or would not) let a parish leave should they want to go that route?
Even though it is posted on his personal blog, notice that the letter is not signed by Steve but by The Clergy, The Vestry, The Staff and former Sr. Wardens of St. Andrew’s (dating back to 1989). It appears that this a letter from ALL of the leadership of the church and not just the rector.
This could end up being a bell-weather moment in “The Great American Anglican Orthodox Divide” that will decide how well “leavers” e.g. ACNA (particularly AMIA) will be able to work with and get along with “stayers” CP Bishops and Dioceses.
The Diocese of SC, by all marks possibly THE most orthodox diocese left in the TEC, has already been party to great conflict in the past by the AMIA on St. Pawley’s Island. The resulting suits, counter-suits and the ill-will this situation has created greatly wounds what should be a unified front of Christian witness from all bible-believing Anglicans regardless of whether they are in TEC or out.
Anyone can understand the desire of reasserters to disassociate from a National Church which on occasion seems to make the Unitarians seem conservative. However, I think its a more difficult decision when one’s bishop upholds the Faith once delivered by the Saints. Theologically, I don’t think there is any empty space between the theology of Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina and that of the four departing dioceses that merged together with the former network to create ACNA (excepting of course WO, in which case it falls into line directly with Pittsburgh). Do you stay with a strong Christian Bishop who needs you to help him fight the good fight? Or do you align with a new body of believers that is more orthodox at the top even if it means splitting from a bishop who is true to the Gospel?
I don’t think either answer is easy, and I think we all should pray that God’s will be done in this situation.
Does anyone know of any parish that went through this Forty Days process and decided [i]not[/i] to leave TEC? From my observations, the message is fairly one-sided, with people who advocate a reasserter inside strategy pretty much left out of the picture, thus leaving the impression that the choice is between leaving or surrendering absolutely to the most extreme reappraisers. Given that choice, most congregations will choose orthodoxy over heresy.
For once, I agree with Dale Rye. I am not sure of the need for this, when you have a Bishop that is basically walling you off from the heresy of TEC. And if you only have two choices, what’s the point. It’s pretty well pre-ordained what is going to happen, as it has every other time that I know about. As I said in another thread, if you are going to have this type of discernment, see what the Lord wants you to do in your world, irrespective of TEC, AC, D. of SC or any other structure or geographic region. Otherwise, follow your diocese and Bishop, especially if you don’t have a quarrel with him.
Re: #4:
Blessed Sacrament, Placentia, CA:
http://johnonefive.blogspot.com/2009/07/blessed-sacrament-decides.html
I’ve also been told of another: Holy Nativity, Plano, TX (Diocese of Dallas).
It does seem that every church that has announced it is doing the program has chosen to leave TEC. Maybe someone has paid closer attention?
I think the reasons for leaving a good Bishop are that 1) +Lawerence will not always be Bishop; 2) the conservative portions of many of the parishes could opt to decamp via the grave, as individuals to REC or AMia parishes, or as groups to start a church plant (a parish could therefore be concerned that its own internal polity is going to shift and/or that of the Diocese); 3) having TEC on the sign out front discourages sane like minded folk from joining your church.
I think even Bishop Lawerence has conceded that the battle for TEC is lost – therefore the Episcopalians of SC can either remain part of a Church that a majority of them has contempt for or depart. The most sane strategy for the Common Cause Bishops would be to let the Conservative parishes depart on generous terms – any effort to block said departure by +815 resulting in their own departure which would likely increase the number of departures. This could be called the “Bishop as rear guard strategy.”
RE: ” I am not sure of the need for this, when you have a Bishop that is basically walling you off from the heresy of TEC.”
I agree that there’s not a need for folks like you and me, but you and I have a differing theology and value system from those who need to leave. They are repulsed by the heresies of the denomination of which they are a part and need to leave in order to get away from them. That is why the plea that “your bishop is good” is fruitless — they’re not looking at the bishop, but the larger organization of which they are perforce a member and their theology dictates that they not be a part of such a corrupt and grotesque organization. The fact that their “local franchise” is good makes no difference.
†I am not sure of the need for this, when you have a Bishop that is basically walling you off from the heresy of TEC.â€
then your future basically lies in the continued good health of said Bishop. And nothing else….
#10 That was certainly true with the Diocese of Florida.