Tim Fountain has a comment also:
Episcopalians are embracing stasis – which in a declining denomination means decline. Folks who mouth revisionist slogans and whose congregations have declined keep being elevated to diocesan leadership, while people like them take their place at the congregational level. This means death by attrition given every current membership and participation marker of the denomination: Episcopalians are older than the U.S. church average, and there is no growth by birth, evangelism or transmission from parents to kids.
This comment from Deacon Tim is of interest as well:
The problem with this entire process has been our (the people of this Diocese) inability to get our minds wrapped around who these candidates are. As a result, opinions are being formed based on what people have written in the past or upon what they said in two minute responses to questions from delegates and interested members. We have had virtually no real interaction with these candidates in the form of thoughtful, nuanced and well-articulated dialogue. Which is a pity, really, since we are going to live with one of them for a very long time.
What an incredibly uncivil way to characterize the expression of the will of the majority of fellow Christians in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. The fact that Sarah Hey disagrees with the result in neither surprising nor relevant, and her extrapolations of the Bishop’s statements and positions are extreme. My last priest, absurdly conservative, was “guilty” of at least 3 of Waldo’s “sins” and he would be outraged to be characterized in the same manner. Let’s see what the man does, and pray for his success in his new position.
Not only is this man a revisionist on sexuality issues, he refuses to recognize Christ as The Way and The Truth.
The Diocese of Upper South Carolina seems like it will no longer be led by a Christian.
My heart and prayers go out to Sarah Hey and all those who had hoped for much. Upper South Carolina had been my diocese for a time a while ago, and this saddens me personally. I hoped that they would at least choose someone who followed Bp Henderson’s idea of the “big tent” with room enough for the orthodox to breathe.
There is no gloating or vindication of any kind in this for any of us. But you must try to forgive those of us who see an inevitability in this.
There was a point at which the prophets were forced to stop saying, “Repent, turn and be healed” and had to say: “The destruction warned has come upon you.” TEC is done. These last two elections are merely demonstrations of the way things are.
Condolences.
I didn’t understand the #1 comment which is now deleted. That person seems extremely angry at the diocese of South Carolina and Sarah Hey among others.
When asked about his position on this at the walkabouts, [Andrew] Waldo responded with these statements in the various walkabout rooms:
Asked about open communion: Says he was “a vocal critic for 10 yrs in his diocese†but the movement came to Minn and it was a great wave. He says they decided to “call all seekers†to the table as a compromise and he sees an analogy to the 1928 prayer book (which he admits assumes only the baptised would go to the rail) Says he would not “foist it†on us.
How about communion of the upbaptized? He says he challenged all in the diocese and lost lots of friends. It is cheap hospitality. He did oppose open communion – and says there is a lot of it in the diocese of Minnesota. He uses a formations invitation to communion. Open comment – had a journey on this issue. Now he says if you want a deeper relationship to Christ, you can come to communion. Formational.
In response to the question about communion of the unbaptized, he asserts that the formula used in the bulletin is a “formational invitation†rather than an open invitation.
The next question covered communion of the unbaptized. Fr. W evidently has thought about how to respond to this question and laid out his reasoning circa 1990 before explaining his change of mind about two years ago. He claims to issue “a formational invitation†such as the 1928 BCP prayer (page 75) beginning “Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins. . .†That invitation is to people who seek a deeper relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This invitation he explains as “a tactical change†so that his parish doesn’t appear to be unwelcoming.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25106
Why would the laity in Upper SC go for this?
# 4: Good question. The vast majority of the actual parishioners there are pretty much conservative people — at least it seemed that way to me. They may have trusted the judgement of their clergy.
I am afraid that a lot of people are in for a shock.
Based on some of the comments, perhaps it is because reappraisers are better at coming across as “really nice guys” than are reasserters.
Deleted by ed.
This result is not surprising….most of the Clergy wanted a bishop who would embrace the leadership of the larger EC. They are very good at getting lay people elected who will vote in agreement with them.
As we see, the Traditionalists are at a numerical disadvantage and as GC09 showed, they simply do not have the votes to win any longer.
This is the reality sad as it may be.
Lord have mercy on us all.
It is clear John Burwell was a non starter probably due to his support of the recent DioSC differentiation resolutions and the fact the progressives painted him as a dissident and likely ACNA supporter. Neil Michell on the other hand garnered significant lay support and exposed a real theological rift between the clergy and laity in USC. Waldo isn’t going to have a cakewalk with a good number of the laity. Plus he has Sarah Hey to contend with!
This is a complete disaster for DUSC and the entire Church. The thing that is most interesting is this comapny man’s first decision will be whether to close the missions in DUSC or further cut the payments to 815. By the way, can someone explain to me why we wasted money on a diocesan survey, only to elect a bishop who 180 degrees out on almost every issue addressed by the assessment? For those of us who wanted clarity, I guess we got it.
Unfortunately, this shows the results of the last decade of the hemmoraging of conservative and traditional laity and clergy from the TEC.
Reappraisers and liberals are in the ascendancy even in one time traditional or even moderate strongholds. It’s not credible anymore to say the laity have been fooled… people are getting exactly who they choose. It’s just the folks who remain seem to be drinking the 815 koolaid big time.
[blockquote]Neil Michell on the other hand garnered significant lay support and exposed a real theological rift between the clergy and laity.[/blockquote]
Same thing happened when he was a candidate in Tennessee in their deadlocked election process. Also I understand that many active clergy there supported Michell but retired and non-parochial clergy were “bused in” to oppose him. Thus the deadlock.
There is in American religion, more noticeable in the South, and more particularly so in the Upland south, something spiritually analogous to what HL Mencken identified as a “libido for the ugly.” We seem to esteem religion in direct proportion to its harshness, and to its starkness of expression.
I rejoice that Upper South Carolina has elected to be its Bishop, not only a “reappraiser” (for when I read the comments and postings of “reasserters” here and elsewhere I see those who would – metaphorically, for the most part, I may only hope – hurl stones before they’d ever offer bread) but one who has traveled a path I can recognize back into the faith (i.e. via 16th century polyphony).
Ranting aside, there’s an aesthetic argument for the Christian Faith, and, more particularly, for its liturgical expression, which is lost in much of our conversation these days.
My point is, this Bishop-elect was not converted/reverted to reappraiser-TEC by reappraiser-TEC. He came to it by way of life and Conservatory. He is one whom the Church and its certainties drove away, but whom God reclaimed through other means. Reappraiser-TEC welcomed his conversion as it was. Y’all seem to dispute whether they should have.
#13 We dispute reappraiser TEC from the get go. A chaplaincy to people who want aesthetic religion without meaning or transformation is a worthless sham. It is simply the other side of “libido of the ugly” – a libido of the nice, dainty, purty and self-satisfied. Any extreme ceases to be catholic, just the same as a church preaching the same sermon on “Ye must be born again” and doing the same hackneyed altar call every week.
My great disappointment with revisionism is that it uses some of the right words and ideas about the radical nature of the Gospel – only to take them right back by concocting an effete, ingrown clique.
A good friend – a verrrrrrry left wing Presbyterian hospital chaplain – once wondered out loud if the Mainline churches were simply a “hospice” for their present members. I think I can say “yes” to her without cynicism or sarcasm. That’s just what they are and today’s DUSC election is just one more proof.
Re Waldo using the 1928 BCP as justification for allowing taking of communion by non-Christians. That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
As I remember it as a child in the Fifties, when the 1928 BCP was in effect:
1. The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States–yes, the same one that was also bound to follow the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that required the Church to be in conformance with Scripture–like most denominations at the time was a closed communion (i.e., only Episcopalians and Anglicans could take communion).
2. You could not take communion until you were confirmed (which obviously meant you were baptized and catechized in the requirements of being a follower of Christ).
At least, that’s the way it was in our church. So how the ’28 BCP could possibly justify non-Christians taking communion is beyond me.
#14 – I think the term you’re looking for is a “libido of the twee.”
Yes; horrific.
However. Meaning and Transformation (I capitalize to emphasize, not to change the meaning) are not the same as/do not result in “normal righteousness.” I may be converted, utterly. I may also be utterly unlike *you.* “The self-satisfied”…?
The musical and liturgical heritage of the Church – the *Aesthetic* argument for Christianity – is not the same as the “hospice” model for the Church (how very modernist of you). It is – I think, anyway – what will nourish any new growth in the Church in the modern and post-modern world, because it is the *only* area in which it has anything to offer whatsoever which is not already answered/nearly refuted amply by the already-antiquated modernist worldview.
#14 Tim Fountain wrote: “people who want aesthetic religion without meaning or transformation is a worthless sham.”
This is *precisely* how we who adhere to a liberal vision of Christ’s message view *y’all.* I mean, before God, if y’all wanted *that* (judgmental, exclusive, angry, self-righteous, beggar-my-neighbor-as-long-as-I-don’t-bugger-him) kind of religion, wouldn’t you be Baptists? We are, to the extent we are aware of it, *ashamed.*
RE: “This is *precisely* how we who adhere to a liberal vision of Christ’s message view *y’all.*”
Well sure — we don’t share the same faiths. It’s understandable that it’s like that as our faiths are mutually opposing and antithetical.
Not certain, though, why that’s said as if any of us should be shocked.
Two gospels. One organization.
That necessarily brings a lot of tension and stress within the organization.
#13–I understand your “argument” to be that religion is a sham, christainity is a philosophy, and therefore one need not be Christian to be a bishop. Is that what you are arguing?
#13. Oriscus,
” My point is, this Bishop-elect was not converted/reverted to reappraiser-TEC by reappraiser-TEC. He came to it by way of life and Conservatory. He is one whom the Church and its certainties drove away, but whom God reclaimed through other means. Reappraiser-TEC welcomed his conversion as it was. Y’all seem to dispute whether they should have.”
Would you mind attempting an explanation of this statement. You lost me after “My point is”
#20- I think its the usual “growth” sham that liberals both politically and theologically use to explain someone whose theological/political journey has traveled from right to left. The funny thing is they don’t see “growth” the same way when ones political/theological journey goes from left to right.
The ultimate root of the argument is that you cannot criticize left-leaning Bishop or Politician X because he came by his beliefs “honestly” through a personal faith journey.
The problem is that as Christians charged with defending the Faith once delivered to the Saints we MUST challenge believers, deacons, priests, and bishops, no matter how well meaning, when their teaching departs from the Bible and the teaching of the church as it has been understood for two millennia. To paraphrase CS Lewis… It’s not that we condemn a clergyman for an honest change of heart that leads away from the deposit of faith, it’s just that we would hope such a person would have the integrity to resign his clerical office when he could no longer be a Christian witness.
Sounds like a lot of folks simply don’t trust the Spirit, whose guidance they seek before any episcopal election. Sounds to me like the Spirit spoke powerfully at the election in Upper South Carolina. But a lot of sour grapes are sounding off.
Yeh — I’ve always said that whatever a democratic vote decides is clearly the Holy Spirit saying what He wants.
[roll eyes]
No doubt you say the same thing concerning your church votes, huh?
; > )
Oh – is that the explanation for the extra vote in the first ballot?
#22 the difficulty of the invocation of the “Spirit” is that the Holy Spirit’s presence and endorsement cannot be assumed it must be discerned, and Anglicanism has always believed that councils can and doth err. Also, it is oh so curious that the same people who invoke the spirit in moments like this do not see the Spirit present in other Anglican instruments such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, say, in his recent statement or his summary at the end of Lambeth 2008, or in the full Lambeth Conference of 1998, among many other places.
The reality is that discernment is a lot tougher than people realize and only occurs in the councils of the church as she wrestles with the Scriptures over time. It is also only clearly seen in historical retrospect. All of us now see in a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13).
One free pass to the Laffin’ Place for Pageantmaster.
But it took me a moment to figure it out.
Spirit of the Age at DUSC, yes! Holy Spirit, no. Unless you note that the offense against the Holy Ghost is such that the offender believes they do right (in their own eyes) and some god is behind it all. The, I guess, you could blame the Holy Spirit in typical Episcopal fashion. And chide Him for tardiness too, while you are at it. It took Him a loooong time to get the polity bit worked out.
Thank you Kendall for that answer. I’m trying to formulate my answer to a fellow church member who is fine with Waldo who said: Well, we prayed for the Holy Spirit’s guidance. When I replied that I had not voted for Waldo, she said, We’re all human–we make mistakes [meaning I had done so]. I couldn’t believe she was saying this to my face, so I rephrased: So, I missed the leading of the Spirit? She confirmed this.
Sheesh! There is a logical fallacy lurking around in that thinking; I just can’t pin it down yet.
The sad thing about this blog is the near total absence of grace, certainly an important component of the Christian life. Plenty of sarcasm, blaming, hostility, self-righteousness; judgmentalism, but a sad lack in that boundless gift of God to us of his Grace. It makes it almost impossible to square the comments I read here with the Christian Gospel, a message of joy and hope, rather than hatred and despair.
#29 Patriarch
Ironic then, is it not, that your comment seems to be a prime example?
Btw what a splendid moniker you have, if I say so myself.
Were the last two comments deleted? I have emails that go beyond post #28.