(Please note: the inaccurate original article to which this offers corrections may be found here).
While I appreciate Adam Parker’s attempt to understand the larger issues surrounding the upcoming Special Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, his recent article titled “Diocese to vote on split” in the Oct. 4 Post and Courier was unfortunately marred by errors of fact.
These errors are all the more troubling because they relate to the effect of the proposed resolutions, should the convention vote in favor of them.
The errors are doubly troubling because a simple phone call to the bishop or the diocesan staff could have quickly corrected any misunderstanding.
The issues are so complicated that I can understand why such errors might be made. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to correct misimpressions that the article may have produced.
Read the resolutions. They speak for themselves. #2 plainly gives the bishop and standing committee the solitary power to withdraw the diocese from the governing bodies of TEC. To say that this does not mean secession is to play a semantic game. While the resolution does not specifically sever ties with TEC it leaves that wide open to the delegated authority. Under #2, the bishop and his cohorts can cut the diocese off from TEC at will. Are we to believe that Bishop Lawrence wants to stay in TEC? He is going about in a very odd way: relentlessly denouncing the national church, appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury over the head of TEC, calling a special convention and presenting it with five resolutions giving him and his allies the power to nullify (failed in the 1830’s) and secede (failed in the 1860’s). It is simply absurd to believe that all this adds up to staying in TEC. Secession is on the horizon one way or another, either by individual parish relaignment, with the bishop’s continued blessings, or by diocesan action. It is only a matter of time.
Well, I for one am very proud of our Bishop.. If you ask me, the demise of TEC into something resembling an almost political charity ismuch closer..
Its wonderful that some folk have a gift of reading other people’s minds.
Grandmother n SC
Elves, the “Read it all” link does not take me to the bishop’s remarks.
[The link appears to work – let us know if you are still having a problem – Elf]
I get the home page of the Post Courier with a foto re: faith haven at the top and an extensive table of contents. I tried their search feature but got nothing for Anglican or Episcopal.
Maybe it’s just my Blackberry.
The text is here –
Bishop Lawrence clarifies position of Episcopal diocese
Friday, October 9, 2009
While I appreciate Adam Parker’s attempt to understand the larger issues surrounding the upcoming Special Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, his recent article titled “Diocese to vote on split” in the Oct. 4 Post and Courier was unfortunately marred by errors of fact.
These errors are all the more troubling because they relate to the effect of the proposed resolutions, should the convention vote in favor of them.
The errors are doubly troubling because a simple phone call to the bishop or the diocesan staff could have quickly corrected any misunderstanding.
The issues are so complicated that I can understand why such errors might be made. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to correct misimpressions that the article may have produced.
First, should the Special Convention on Oct. 24 approve these five resolutions, their passage does not mean that the diocese will leave the Episcopal Church or, as stated in the article, withdraw from “the mother church.”
For the sake of historical accuracy, the Diocese of South Carolina actually preceded the existence of what is today known as the Episcopal Church; our diocese was one of the dioceses that founded and ratified the Episcopal Church after the American Revolution.
The proposed resolutions are not intended as a withdrawal from the church. Rather they are a means for the Diocese of South Carolina to more fully engage the challenges that surround us, in both the contemporary culture and the Episcopal Church, without withdrawing from the national church.
Only one of the proposed resolutions makes any reference to “withdrawing.”
It does not state that the diocese is withdrawing from the Episcopal Church.
Rather, it is specifically focused on beginning to withdraw from those entities within the national church which have gone contrary to Holy Scripture; the teachings of the worldwide Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal Church understands itself to be a member); the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the Book of Common Prayer; and the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
The very fact that the recent General Convention in July went contrary to these authorities and rules of governance has made such a protest as embodied in these resolutions both a matter of conscience and necessity, if we are to remain as Episcopalians. The failure to vigorously voice our concerns would be contrary to both our vows and our governing documents.
Likewise, a vote supporting these resolutions would not put this diocese in the same position as those four dioceses that have “severed ties to the Episcopal Church,” as the article suggests.
Further adding to the misunderstanding, Mr. Parker suggests that these resolutions will “likely trigger confrontations between members of the diocese and church officials.” Frankly, even as the bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, I find it difficult to decipher his speculation and that is all that this portion of his article represents.
Among other things, I am concerned that parishioners in our local Episcopal congregations will be confused as to the meaning of these resolutions or of the convention, or be led into unfounded speculation about them.
To suggest that there is no risk in any of this for the Diocese of South Carolina would be to mislead; to inadvertently misrepresent the consequences, as this article does, is helpful to no one.
THE RT.REV. MARK J. LAWRENCE
Bishop of South Carolina
Coming Street
Charleston
Everyone, kindly excuse the following editorial doodle on my part; it grows out of nothing important in the article but merely out of my own long history of grading papers and rewriting sentences:
“has made such a protest as embodied in these resolutions both a matter of conscience and necessity”
My sharpened pen fixes that to read “has made such a protest as embodied in these resolutions a matter of both conscience and necessity”
(Or: “a matter both of conscience and of necessity”)
Again, I apologize for this stylistic interruption–merely a twitch on my part, or an itch that had to be scratched–so please don’t all write in taking me to task for straining at gnats. I already know I just did and that there are far more important matters afoot in this excellent, clearly written letter.
Thanks, Elf!
This approach is a tactic not yet tried, even by +Howe. 815 has honed its responses to departing parishes and dioceses (sue ’em) and to bishops such as +Howe (ignore ’em) and to the CP strategem (sorry, ya can’t sign) but has yet to encounter a principaled stand such as this one.
It is good that the Bishop set this reporter straight. This is not the first time this paper has reported wrongly regarding the facts….but it causes unnecessary distress.
Well done Bishop Lawrence.
The nuances (which are really quite substantive in this case) are very difficult to understand for persons not immersed in this controversy. It’s hard enough for Anglicans/Episcopalians in the pews. The Bishop’s statement is helpful not just for the general reader, but also for the rest of us.
#8. NoVA Scout,
I agree. I have been following the controversy for years — even after TEC left our parish. I have some difficulty understanding:
“Rather, it is specifically focused on beginning to withdraw from those entities within the national church which have gone contrary to Holy Scripture; the teachings of the worldwide Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal Church understands itself to be a member); the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the Book of Common Prayer; and the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.”
My problem is which entities will they not begin to withdraw from? What is left? There is no more mission activity at TEC. So it sounds as if there is a beginning to withdraw from most if not all TEC operations. As I understand it the diocese will not attend the GC in 2012. Will they use that as an opportunity to point to TEC’s errors in doctrine? I guess it is a sort of severing some ties while not severing all TIES.
This may be a brilliant response by the diocese to a situation they neither sought nor expected when they helped to form TEC. I only wish I understood it better. I will continue to pray for +Mark and all the people in his diocese. They are set to take a very difficult stand and that is what more of us should have done with TEC many years ago.
“Further adding to the misunderstanding, Mr. Parker suggests that these resolutions will “likely trigger confrontations between members of the diocese and church officials.” Frankly, even as the bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, I find it difficult to decipher his speculation and that is all that this portion of his article represents.”
I think the Bishop is a forthright man (even though I don’t agree with him) but his puzzlement here strains credulity. That there is a significant minority in the Diocese of SC who are not “on board” with selective withdrawal, or semi-disengagement, or whatever it is called can’t be denied. “Members of the Diocese” who want representation at GC, or don’t agree with the resolutions, will have to “confront” church officials at some point.
Or is this part of the fiction that the membership Diocese of SC is unfied in its oppostion to 815? Is it really “speculation” to project that the steps the Bishop is pushing will result in confrontation? It is already happening.
RE: “That there is a significant minority in the Diocese of SC who are not “on board†with selective withdrawal, or semi-disengagement, or whatever it is called can’t be denied.”
Um — depends on what you mean by “significant” — I’m afraid I don’t think several revisionist parish rectors and some 300 laity [not all of which are even members of the Diocese] is “significant” — but certainly if others wish to feel that that is “significant” it’s no problem. Up here in the Upper Diocese we all know the list of the progressive clergy in the Diocese of SC — very conscious of that list and note just how slim it is. We even know the four parishes to tell our friends and visiting family down in the Low Country to avoid too — while at the same time telling them that it’s pretty much a sure thing to depend on the faithfulness to the Gospel of all the other parishes in the diocese. ; > )
I’ll cross-post my comment from another thread: [blockquote]”I think the good news about the attempted “re-interpretation†by the Episcopal Forum of Bishop Lawrence’s and the Diocese’s proposed resolutions regarding distancing and differentiating themselves from the actions of TECs national bodies without actually leaving TEC is that . . . the Episcopal Forum is clearly feeling 1) pointless and in need of a cause and 2) threatened by the proposed differentiation and direction of Bishop Lawrence.
That’s what these latest stories and misdirections are about. In need of some kind of emotion and cause and publicity—and irritated by the differentiation—the Episcopal Forum is attempting to whip up a frenzy and misdirect from Lawrence’s purpose. I predict that 1) it won’t work, and 2) most of the resolutions will pass, and 3) the Episcopal Forum will go silent again post convention until they can discover some new misdirection and re-interpretation to try to get the attention of folks outside the diocese.
I do think it’s a good sign of “just right†action that they are so threatened by these proposed actions, though.”[/blockquote]