This decision represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching. It will add further to the Episcopal Church’s incoherent witness and chaotic common life, and it will continue to do damage to the Anglican Communion and her relationship with our ecumenical partners.
–The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon is Canon Theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina
Except the AC will continue to do absolutely nothing.
TEC should be removed from the JSC.
It is good to have the double talk around the “moratorium” clarified, letting yes be yes and no be no.
Wonderful news the diocese of LA. The march for full inclusion goes forward. All of God’s beloved children are equal in the eyes of God, and the diocese of Los Angeles is showing that equality is more important than worrying about what “others” (who mistakenly read Scripture through a narrow lens of literal interpretation) might think. The Holy Spirit continues to work in the church. Congratulations to Los Angeles! Praise be to God!!!
Yes, this is truly a good thing for Christians everywhere! I pray that with continued clarification of their positions and beliefs that TEC may continue in their current growth patterns.
Can we please go easy on the sarcasm–ed.
Yes! Clarity, clarity, clarity! The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, abandoning the Gospel of Jesus Christ for a message of faux-“inclusion” has taken its stand. I expect the rest of TEC to follow suit…and then the Anglican Communion to dither and do nothing in response. In that moment, the Anglican experiment will be seen for the failure it is…and the current slate of “leaders” will oversee the death of a once-blessed church.
-Jim+
Nice, short, clear statement, Canon Harmon.
I think that rather than continue chaos, this decision actually brings an end to a period of “what if…?” +Gene is no longer an aberration that can be explained away as a particular moment in a particular place. ++Katharine has stated that partnered LGBTs can be nominated. Los Angeles has shown that partnered LGBTs can be elected. All that remains is whether or not TEC will exercise restraint in granting consent. My guess is that (+)Glaspool will receive consent. This places TEC at odds with the vast majority of Christians. However, it is now a fact that TEC ordains partnered LGBT individuals to all levels of ministry. So the “incoherent witness” actually becomes very coherent. This is who TEC is. It may not be who you are, but it is who TEC is.
To ed, sorry, some sarcasm, but really more thankfulness. I have a mother still in the church (the infamous St. Mark’s Cathedral in Minneapolis) who has been heavily indoctrinated. My hope and prayer is that as more of TEC’s true colors are undeniably shown, that she will at least begin to question its direction and then her participation.
Brian, the problem is that the national leadership pretended that the situation was other than it is (and this is pattern of a larger pattern over a long period of time) Two letters were written to the Archbishop of Canterbury after GC2009 saying what wasn’t true is. Even an official episcopal church publication that was already printed was changed.
It continues to be a church that says one thing but does something else at numerous levels. TEC is at odds with other Christians. It is also at odds with itself.
#8–surely you are not being serious. Of course consents will be given. Why would one think otherwise? This will be a solid consent. TEC has declared its position quite clearly and will back it up through the consent process. We are in the ‘brave new world’ of the new TEC denomination. Those in favor of this–the majority–should be rejoicing over the victory and all that it portends.
nice, concise statement.
Your statement’s not enough, Kendall. It’s nowhere near enough. The Rubicon’s been crossed twice. What is South Carolina going to do about it?
Not certain why South Carolina — or Dallas or Central Florida — need do anything about it.
They’re sitting pretty. They’ve taken care of their dioceses — elections and standing committees and everything. All they need do is sit down while all the other dioceses melt down.
Which, judging by Louisiana’s far more interesting election today, is happening mighty fast.
As we’ve known for years now, this is a regional defense game now, all the way. Some — very few — will manage to protect their regions and hunker down, utterly powerless to affect TEC in general. But not utterly powerless in their own dioceses.
I’m sure there is a repeat of the way to WO here. Didn’t they put facts on the ground, discipline no one, and later tweak some canons?
Same here folks, if consents are received, (I for one think it might be very close either way), the facts ARE definitely on the ground.. It worked once, nothing like trying again..
Grandmother in SC
Actually, Sarah, they won’t be. If Mrs. Schori wants to take out Bishop Lawrence, you and I both know that she will do it whenever the mood strikes her.
Kendall+, I see your point. However, now the die is cast. There are no barriers to the ordination of partnered LGBTs. The old adage “Fool me once, shame on you…” is now written in stone (or at least it will be if consent is given). The choice now is up to others. TEC has revealed her “true colors” and what people do with that is up to them.
Seitz+, I am rejoicing over the decision, but a display such as #4 above is a bit unseemly for this forum.
Because TEC has further defined itself, would it not be appropriate for CP rectors and bishops to further define themselves within TEC–and to start to increase their profile and to raise their flag a bit higher? Mainstream Anglicans remaining within TEC need to be able to identify more clearly some safe harbors or at least some islands in these rough seas.
There are still CP rectors and bishops? Do they actually stand for or do anything?
10 years from now TEC will be sacrificing new-born babies on the altar in celebration of the marriage of a man and a goat and we’ll still have people saying “If they go one step further, I swear I’m going to leave…”
Looks like Gene will have to share the stage. I wonder how he’ll react now that’s he’s no longer unique.
Brian: Lots of competition for ….
Edited because of undue sarcasm and it is veering off topic.
RE: “If Mrs. Schori wants to take out Bishop Lawrence, you and I both know that she will do it whenever the mood strikes her.”
Oh absolutely. And that will unify the diocese regarding leaving or staying [which it certainly is not now], not to mention taking their decision to stay in TEC out of their hands by effectively kicking them out.
Bishop Lawrence could only dream that Schori would make that mistake.
Again . . . sitting pretty all around as any of the very very few dioceses that are solidly and strategically conservative are.
Sarah,
While I admire your consistency, I also marvel at what appears to me to be a naive position. As then bishop Steenson indicated upon his departure from TEC, there is no future for principled Anglo-Catholicism in TEC. Likewise, I cannot see a future for principled Evangelicalism in TEC either. Of the three parties only liberal Anglicanism will remain in a generation.
RE: “there is no future for principled Anglo-Catholicism in TEC . . . ”
And when did I say that?
RE: “Likewise, I cannot see a future for principled Evangelicalism in TEC either.”
And when did I say that?
RE: “Of the three parties only liberal Anglicanism will remain in a generation.”
I completely agree.
None of that, of course, has a whit to do with my thesis about South Carolina.
How nice for Sarah and others to be in a diocese which can “sit pretty” as an island of conservatism in a sea of revisionism.
Can’t say that that attitude does much for those of us so unlucky to be stuck in a revisionist diocese with little realistic power to affect diocesan policy.
Perhaps that’s why more and more traditionalists are deciding that life outside of TEc is more and more appealing. The shekinah glory has left the temple, and God’s judgment will surely be forthcoming.
Sarah,
Your comment (#14), I think, displays the reality that TEO in the United States now is no longer reflective of Catholic Christianity (and classical Anglicanism as well). If a diocese can do what it wishes (whether that diocese be theologically conservative or liberal) with little or no accountability to a wider church structure, there is merely a scattered collection of ecclesiastical fiefdoms, headed by a bishop with his or her own sense of order. This is a recipe for disaster – and the Gospel mission will suffer. A house divided…
At this point, any diocese which remains in TEC must accept the legitimacy and episcopacy of Bishops [sic] Robinson and Glasspool, as ABSOLUTELY equivalent to those of Bishops Howe, Lawrence, et. al. It’s clear that the Communion (whatever that means anymore) will not come to the rescue should the head of TEO (can’t call it a church anymore) decide to clamp down.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
Park City, UT
Joshua in #26, you need to be aware that Sarah Hey is not in the diocese of South Carolina, she is in the diocese of Upper South Carolina.
RE: “How nice for Sarah and others to be in a diocese which can “sit pretty†as an island of conservatism in a sea of revisionism.”
How nice for Joshua to be completely ignorant of where this commenter is coming from.
I am not at all “sitting pretty” — in fact, it is in noting that I am *not* that I also observe those who are in fact doing so.
And of course, I am noting the bitterness and hostility of *some* of those who are not sitting pretty who want the diocese of South Carolina to cease being in a good place, so that that diocese can be in the great shape of the other dioceses which have departed.
RE: “Can’t say that that attitude does much for those of us so unlucky to be stuck in a revisionist diocese with little realistic power to affect diocesan policy.”
Right — because nobody should point out facts about other healthy and functional dioceses. All folks should be thinking about is “what can South Carolina do for me?” It’s interesting that some of the folks stuck in bad dioceses believe that those who have actually preserved their own diocese have the duty to mess their own diocese up so that they can “do something” for those of us stuck in the rest of TEC. Can’t say I think that attitude is anything other than covetousness and envy.
RE: “Your comment (#14), I think, displays the reality that TEO in the United States now is no longer reflective of Catholic Christianity (and classical Anglicanism as well).”
I agree.
RE: “At this point, any diocese which remains in TEC must accept the legitimacy and episcopacy of Bishops [sic] Robinson and Glasspool, as ABSOLUTELY equivalent to those of Bishops Howe, Lawrence, et. al.”
I disagree.
There’s no need for any diocese which remains in TEC to cease being quite clear about their stances and differentiation and the “legitimacy” [whatever that means] of a person living in scandalous sin as a bishop.
But certainly folks can go on and make the demand that South Carolina cease fighting within TEC.
Which is, of course, what all of this is about. “See there — TEC has done Bad Thing #4,045 — surely this is the Very Last Straw for you Stayers — leave TEC and be like us, the happy, joyful, peaceful, full of the fruit of the Spirit people!” ; > )
UMMM. If the Diocese of Northern Michigan did not get the consents that they wanted, who can be sure that LA will??? The consent process is a check in the overall election process. I suspect for a similar reason that the US has the electoral college, a TEC diocese has to gain consents for their elected person. Makes sense if it prevents dioceses from going to far from the rest of the church. However, as it is the majority have moved leaving dioceses such as SC, Dallas and Central Florida in a minority. Still, we can make our opinions known.
Remember, Lawrence got the consents he needed so why can not we withhold consent? I can pretty much guarantee that the Standing Committee of SC will withhold consent from this lesbian elected in LA. Now, we just need more dioceses to join us in not giving consent. I certainly hope our standing committee is one of the first to reply.
I wonder. Her final confirmation may be less even and troblefree than most people here assume. The ssm business has taken an turn no one would have predicted a year ago and there may be a broader message in this. Mind you, all the Schori’s of TEC are impervious, but the rest of the Episcopal world may be thinking new and previously unacceptable thoughts. Larry
In my opinion the consents are a slam dunk. The N. Michigan tipping point was the man’s changing the prayer book liturgies – that is a HUGE heresy. The majorities at last GC show that to bless homoerotic behavior is the new normal. The PB doesn’t give a fig for what Rowan thinks or says. TEC is after all a Communion in its own right and we are autonomous. She persuaded Rowan to skunk the Covenant. Now she and TEC can do what she/it likes.
frianm, the S. Californian tipping point may have been the devastating defeat for gays at the polls on same sex marriage, and their desperate search for a victory–any kind of victory–to substantiate their “story”. The “story” of course is, “This is inevitable. The rest of the communion will catch up with us. You will be assimilated.”
#30… hey Blue Cat. I see your point but it’s really crucial to look carefully at the NO votes to the Buddhist Bishop (Kevin Thew Forster).
Many of the NO voters (bishops or standing committees) went on record with a written justification of what impelled them to vote NO. And extremely few said “Because he is an apostate” (full stop). Very few were primarily concerned about his role as the guardian of the creedal faith.
Most of them were largely concerned about the irregularities involved. The irregularities of the voting were a big concern. Even the heretical liturgies he pioneered were objected to chiefly because he failed to follow appropriate PROCESS (getting them approved first by General Convention etc.).
This time there are no process hooks on which a NO bishop can hang his vote. To justify a NO vote based on the agreement passed in 2006 seems silly — the text of the 2009 resolution clearly cancelled it — and more importantly strongly affirmed the position of anyone wanting to vote YES.
I am curious… does anyone know whether the recently elected lesbian has gone on record as opposing any classical church teaching outside the issue of issues of homosexuality and women’s ordination?
It would surprise me very much if she WASN’T a heretic in other respects — but she may have been more discreet than the Buddhist Bishop and there may be less of a public record of it.
My apologies, Sarah. I was obviously shot from the hip, and out of some anger at the overall trajectory of this once great church. And maybe some envy at those in a diocese like SC, or the ACNA breakaway dioceses (yes, I’d personally just as soon be in one of those, rather than the Egypt of a securely revisionist TEc diocese, even with the uncertainties of lawsuits, etc.).
Contrary to your assumptions, though, I am NOT advocating that SC has to “do something” or “mess itself up.” I think that realistically the time for any one diocese or even several orthodox dioceses to meaningfully alter the course of this ship has past. That was 6, or 10, or 20, or 40 years ago, when the cancer was first diagnosed and still amenable to treatment. I’m honestly still not clear on what you or other “stayers” advocate or hope to accomplish, but I realize that it’s a decision you’ve given much thought and prayer to, and I wish you God speed.
To clarify – my comment above was not directed toward Kendall and I regret posting it under his main posting.
Apology accepted and I understand, Joshua.
I recognize envy from some in part because I experience it and have to work hard against it, personally.
But I also accept that part of the reason why I am in the mess that I am in is because of [i]consequences[/i] — of my own stupidity, naivete, cluelessness, inaction, etc, etc, and that of other of my allies.
My hope is that I come out of this with some modicum of insight and transformation on my own part. Otherwise, I’m going through all of this for very little good reason, as nearly as I can discern.
But maybe we are all being prepared for far greater battles than this one. Maybe this is our training ground.
Thank you, Sarah. I prayed a lot on this in church today, and appreciate your thoughts. Having recently gone through a lot of job- and family-related challenges that I won’t bore you with, I look even more to my faith to cope with the battles of this present life, as I’m sure you do. It’s easy to envy those who appear to be in a “safe harbor,” not buffeted by the storm elsewhere (at least for now).
The Calvinist in me keeps reminding me of God’s Providence. I also need to remind myself of John 15:2. The pruning is painful, but with God’s grace may we all yield more fruit.