Barbara Mann, treasurer and board member of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, said the Episcopal Church has not contradicted its canons or changed the definition of marriage or rejected the lordship of Christ.
And she took issue with the claim that “withdrawing from all bodies of The Episcopal Church,” as stated in the diocese resolution, did not signify a separation.
“The resolution means basically withdrawing from the Episcopal Church,” she said. “The General Convention is the main body of the Episcopal Church.”
“Barbara Mann, treasurer and board member of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, said the Episcopal Church has not contradicted its canons or changed the definition of marriage or rejected the lordship of Christ.”
So. They just ignore them.
I am not surprised at the various points of view. However, it is surprising at the dishonesty of some. It as though they do not wish to be confused with the facts. Bishop Lawrence is taking a bold stand that the majority of Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Caroling agree with. He is seeking profound differentiation from the actions of General Convention and the other leadership bodies of the Episcopal Church and is to be commended.
I would be honored to serve under such a godly man and leader.
Episcopal Forum…500 members, So Mr. Parker how many members of the Diocese not in the Episcopal Forum? According to this article there must be about 150, since Mr. Parker interviews 3 of their members and 1 non-member. This is typical of the media’s method of creating the perception that in SC there is an even split between sides in the argument, when it is very much not the case.
The other article at least quotes Bp Lawrence that there are 30,000 members. Only 500 in the liberal group.
[blockquote]The other article at least quotes Bp Lawrence that there are 30,000 members. Only 500 in the liberal group.[/blockquote]
1.7%? Isn’t that what the PB calls “a tiny minority?” 1.7% of her claimed 2.1 million Episcopalians would be a whopping 35,000.
could we all agree NOT to use the word “polity” for a season or so? it’s becoming just silly.
Bishop Lawrence has stated that the diocese will: 1-not withdraw from TEC, and 2-begin to withdraw from the governing bodies of TEC? How could one not withdraw and withdraw? The are mutually contradictory to me. Would someone out there please explain to me how SC could do both?
[blockquote]the Episcopal Church has not contradicted its canons or changed the definition of marriage or rejected the lordship of Christ.[/blockquote]
This is what you get from folks who are so proud that they don’t have to leave their brains at the door when they enter church. I wonder how many of those 500 actually reside in the diocese and whether you might find “Fr. Jake” [i]and[/i] Terry Martin, etc.
IT doesn’t seem to me that there is no mandate for any diocese in TEC to attend, cooperate with, or anything else in the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, course I’m just a grandma, what do I know.
And i grant you, that could very well change when the new Disciplinary Canons take effect. Wonder if there is any unfinished business for the Executive Council to do that might effect that?
The new “Tithe” might be a problem, but what happens if you don’t pay? You have no vote in Convention, oh horrors, right now conservatives have no vote anyway.
Grandmother in SC
Indeed, there is no requirement for any bishop to attend the House of Bishop or for any diocese’s deputies to attend General Convention.
Those in South Carolina with long memories should recall the Late Unpleasantness. At that time whenever the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America met, the names of the southern bishops would be called out when there was a role call and it was noted that they were absent. The same thing happened in the House of Deputies–the southern dioceses were noted to be absent. And business in both Houses proceeded.
When the Late Unpleasantness ended, the southern bishops returned and it was noted that they were present. At the next General Convention it was noted that the southern dioceses were represented. And business proceeded as usual.
There were, to the best of my knowledge, no bishops or priest deposed. No standing committees declared vacant. And no lawsuits for “stolen property” were brought.
In those days, the primary business to come before General Convention was that of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society–the support of the missionary work in the West and in foreign countries. There weren’t resolutions on U.S. foreign and domestic policy or anything of the sort. In those days the Presiding Bishop was the senior diocesan bishop whose job was (a) to preside over meetings of the House of Bishops and (b) to be the principle consecrator of new bishops when convenient.
The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America was located in Philadelphia; there was no fancy New York City headquarters. The staff was mainly concerned with recruiting priests, teachers, nurses and doctors for missionary work and raising funds for the support of the domestic and foreign missions. The treasurer would receive and acknowledge gifts sent in from Sunday School classes of 25 and 50 cents, but wealthy people were creating endowments for spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the West, to Africa, to Asia and to South America.
Maybe we should return to those days, when Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America was actually growing!
I am one of hundreds of Episcopalians who believed that our church was not honoring the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the basic meanings of our Creeds, and our sacramental and Baptismal theology by our marginalizing and demonizing gay and lesbian members of our church.
None of us, gay or straight, went to the lengths Bishop Lawrence and much of the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina are contemplating. We did not withdraw from our dioceses or the national church. We did not withdraw our pledges or the pledged support of our dioceses. We had strong Biblical scholarship to support us — and moral theologians who stood with us.
We were incensed at the treatment of more than one minority by the majority of the Episcopal Church; however, we did not call those with whom we disagreed “heretics,” “enemy of the cross,” “apostate” or any of the other shibboleths of the right.
In comparison, what has come from the leadership of South Carolina seems like whining. You don’t need to whine — in my humble opinion you need to realize that you are part of a large and diverse church which at times embraces your point of view and at other times embraces others. I and other moderates and progressives grant you the sincerity of your views while disagreeing with them. Speaking for myself, what I expect of you is that engage with the rest of the Episcopal Church with respect and without “disengagement” or the withholding or diversion of funds — just like those of us you outvoted for decades.
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.
re#3 Adam Parker has his work cut out for him finding a “balance” as many who support Bishop Lawrence will NOT comment to him due to the past history of errors in his reporting.
Sarah, The Episcopal Forum has since its inception been pointless, disingenuous (borderline lying about +Lawrence during the consent process) and, having perused the membership listing on their website, comprised of the histrionic left. As a deputy to the diocesan special convention I am betting every resolution passes by a crushing majority.
I know.. I wrote him a story last spring on the 240th Anniversary of our church BUILDING (not the church, which was established in 1754), the building that was built 1767-69 and still standing.. He complete messed it up, saying it was the 240th anniversary of the church) he just couldn’t conceive of a church not being just a building. LOL
However, the wire services picked it up, even if it was wrong, and we ended up the feature TV story of the day, so all was not lost.
Grandmother
11 years reporter for the local paper
[blockquote] “Probably, if breakaway parishes hadn’t started some years ago to take the assets, putting the national church on the defensive, perhaps this would have unfolded differently, with some negotiation possible,” [Barbara Mann] said. [/blockquote] There’s that code word. [url=http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2009/10/and-password-is-breakaway.html]Breakaway[/url]. All us conservatives are just chips off the ol’ TEC glacier.