Resolution #1
Subject: First Guiding Principle for Engagement
“The Lordship of Christ and the Sufficiency of Scripture”
Offered by: The Standing Committee and Deans
Whereas, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church, is a constituent member of The Anglican Communion, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, and
Whereas, recent pronouncements by the Presiding Bishop and resolutions of the General Convention have raised questions about the content and nature of the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church, and
Whereas, it has never been the intent of The Episcopal Church to depart from the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Church of England as we have received them, now, therefore, be it
Resolved that the Diocese of South Carolina reaffirms its commitment to live its corporate life under the authority of Holy Scripture (Articles of Religion, Art. VI and XX) and the unique Lordship of Jesus Christ (Art. XVIII) and commits to exercising all such actions as the Bishop and Standing Committee may believe edifying to the Body of Christ in bearing that witness and bringing to light such actions as contravene those essentials to “upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order” (Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States: Preamble) as we have received them: and be it
Further Resolved, that the following statement shall constitute our understanding of the
doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church and shall be read at all ordinations in The Diocese of South Carolina, and a copy of which shall be attached to the Oath of Conformity signed by the ordinand at such service of ordination:“In the Diocese of South Carolina, we understand the substance of the ”ždoctrine, discipline and worship”Ÿ of The Episcopal Church to mean that which is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books.”
Any clarification on what’s meant by “historic prayer books?”
Good and faithful resolutions.
Kendall, might you be able to shed some light? The Bishop of SC was one of the seven who went to visit Canterbury and returned with a document asking their Communion Partners to endorse the first three sections of Ridley Draft–but here is a motion to endorse all four sections. ACNA has already endorsed all four sections, as has at least one Province; and Southeast Asia has recommended that all four sections be endorsed within a year.
I want to be careful here, but it appears to me that a pattern is in play to press for all four. I would be very encouraged if you might be able to affirm that pattern?
If on the other hand, there are other factors involved that I am not seeing and that my observation of a pattern is actually an over-reach, I’d be glad to be corrected on the matter.
Can the delegates really approve the last “Whereas” – I’m not sure “it has never been the intent of The Episcopal Church to depart from the doctrine, discipline, and worship…” – isn’t that EXACTLY what the intent of the last two or three GC’s has been??!!
Darin+
It is time to stop dancing around the question and start discussing secession from the TEClub.
Resolution #3 seems to imply the possibility of opening the Diocese of South Carolina to ministering to parishes/individuals in other dioceses. Am I wrong? If so, how please?
[i]recent pronouncements by the Presiding Bishop and resolutions of the General Convention have raised questions about the content and nature of the doctrine[/i]
Only recent ones?
lol.
May the Holy Spirit provide the wisdom and strength.
Don
Interesting, I guess…
The last resolve is, anyways…
It’ll maybe raise some hackles on “the other side”.
Otherwise this is like watching a glacier.
Here’s a take from someone “on the ground” (full disclosure: I’m what you folks would all a reappraiser):
SC cannot afford to go to ACNA right now. There are plenty of clergy who want to go. There are lots (indeed, a majority) or activist laity who want to go (I’m talking about those who pay attention to this stuff; I’m not sure there’s a majority of apolitical pew-sitters, casual attenders, and “I chose this church for the location/children’s programs/architecture crowd); our Bishop seems like he would fit in just fine theologically with the ACNA crowd…but.
SC is a poor state. Lot of parishes have heavily mortgaged buildings. And, oddly enough, there’s lots of pledge money tied up amongst the minority of reapparisers–just enough, in some parishes, to tip some churches into serious financial crisis.
If SC seceeds, and you shave of the reappraises who stick with TEC (and who will in turn reconstitute the diocese on a smaller scale, trying to hold on to at lease some of the buildings), what Bishop Lawrence will be left with is an impoverished (and heavily sued) chunk of a diocese that would be joining an entity (ACNA) that has yet been fully, explicity embraced by Canterbury.
So you get a very deliberate (glacial?) strategy–technically stay in TEC so liberals like me will hang around, but rhetorically distance from TEC so the orthodox feel like that crazy General Convention and Lady Bishop don’t apply in this diocese.
And you know what? It is working, at least as a temporary strategy. Liberals like me won’t leave (if we want to stay Episcopal–Bishop Lawrence still has the only franchise in town) and my reasserter friends are able to view themselves as the beseiged bastions of truth.
This resolution, with its emphasis on “the historic faith and order” is interesting, though, as there are a lot of unrepentant divorced people in my diocese, and women clergy in our deanery, so we’ll see how historic a faith we’re signing up for!
I wish our diocese could pass similar resolutions. However, as we begin the episcopal election process, we have to be careful right now if we ever want to get consent to consecrate another reasserting bishop.
“SC cannot afford to go to ACNA right now.”
It would appear that some of the healthiest parishes are headed that way regardless of what the diocese does. We have St. Andrews on the precipice, the Beaufort County 3 which are all in good condition and have given some indications they will follow St. Andrews. It looks to me like SC would be left in a considerably diminished state should they lose these parishes – the situation could resemble what happened with Falls Church, Truro, All Saints, etc. leaving Dio. of VA a few years ago (even though, of course, there are considerable differences with the leadership in these dioceses).
At least they have come together, worked out their their thoughts and are doing [b][i]something[/i][/b]. If only something would happen in Albany. Albany is really great at the “glacial pace” part, but not so good at the planning and doing.
Does Resolution #2 include withdrawing from General Convention, which is the focus of the “Further Resolved”, and if so, how does that not get Bp. Lawrence and the Diocese in a heap of trouble (or at least hassle)? Ooh, and any South Carolinians want to comment on the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis]Nullification Crisis[/url] in regards to #2’s “Further Resolved” discussion D025 and C056 (they are zeros, not “oh”s, right?)
Why can’t this just be done with Resolutions #1 and #5? I [i]guess[/i] #3 and #4 need to be said.
I like the premise of #1 (I think we all appreciate the attempt at clearing up the Oath of Conformity), but is everyone ready to pledge to the 39 Articles – I mean, really? Remember, with the Articles come the Homilies (Article XXXV). And [b]which version of the Articles[/b]? The 1801 version I suppose, right, since the Diocese remains a constituent member of TEC (Resolutions 3 and 4)? Just to start, Article V endorses the filioque clause which is in conflict with the “original” Orthodox Nicene Creed (though not the one that has ever appeared an Anglican Prayer Book until [url=http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=1994-A028]General Convention 1994[/url]). Which Article VIII are we talking about – the one with or without (1801) the Athanasian Creed? [i]Are you really going to step that hard into XVII’s predestination[/i]? I’m just saying…
I mean I think a lot of us are fine with The Articles, but is South Carolina really going to require conformity to them? Many could argue (but few would or do) that “doctrine, discipline, and worship” simply means the Constitution and Canons and the (1979) Prayer Book, which includes the Articles in the fine print of Historical Documents anyway, but still…
And yes Comment #10, Resolution #5 will cause a comedy of dirges from the usual suspects.
Two problems: one minor, the other is quite major.
1. Resolution #1 simply misunderstands the history of The Episcopal Church and the role of the historic documents of the Church (as relates to TEC).
and
2. Resolution #5 says:
this Diocese will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person,
but then goes on to say:
those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. [Emphasis added]
This alone is an internal contradiction to the resolution which condones prejudice and denies dignity. I would ask that those who believe themselves to be Christian and believe themselves to be treating others with dignity amend it to actually reflect that belief in dignity and restate the prejudiced resolution.