Let’s see here. [Tracey] Lind at minimum foresaw the possibility of, and arguably advocated for, people leaving the Anglican Communion if the Communion ultimately proved rejecting of the Episcopal Church’s stance in favor of “full inclusion.”
That leads me to a question: How is Lind’s view concerning leaving the Anglican Communion substantially different from the view concerning leaving the Episcopal Church allegedly held by Mark Lawrence at the time of his first election as Bishop of South Carolina — the view that lead to the smear campaign against Lawrence?
Because at worst, progressives could claim that Lawrence at minimum foresaw the possibility of, and arguably advocated for, people leaving the Episcopal Church if TEC rejected the orthodoxy of the Anglican Communion.
Lawrence, to whom consent was not granted this last spring and who has now been elected by South Carolina a second time, was pilloried for, among other reasons, the supposed threat of leading that diocese out of the Episcopal Church. His greatest “sin,” to Episcopal progressives, seemingly consisted of statements like this one: “I shall commit myself to work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in The Episcopal Church, as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping The Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
Is that any more radical a statement of potential leave-taking than what Lind said? Of course not, particularly when your consider that Lawrence said the following just one paragraph prior: “I would ask you to consider the fact that many of us want to remain in the Anglican Communion as well as The Episcopal Church.”
this would be a good blurb to post to the HoB/D list. after all, some of them have been quite steadfast that + elect Lawrence not become bishop. so why not Lind?
Chris, there is a double standard. It’s that simple.
The analogy is not very good: Lind has not been elected Bishop, only nominated. It is not in the hands of the rest of the Bishops as of now.
#3 – I’m pretty sure there was opposition to Mark Lawrence (and Ellis Brust) before the election. And there was support for Gene Robinson, as we all know, from largely the same group. No reason to clam up about Lind.
#2 – I realize there is a double standard, yet I marvel at the contortionism (sp?) that takes place on the HoB/D list.
This certainly is no surprise to me. I’ve never known the gay/liberal agenda folk to hold themselves to the same standards as they do for everyone else.
These remarks by Lind are clearly not acceptable for a bishop, precisely as Lawrence’s remarks seem designed to make him less of an oath-breaker (by changing the promise) than the other departing bishops. Neither is acceptable.
I heard Lind preach at my seminary once, and she managed to hack off just about everyone because she hinted at this very issue of leaving rather than facing an Anglican Communion forced to withdrawal from the Full Inclusion mantra.
So far as I can tell, it’s only been recently that traditionalists have (conveniently) elevated TEC’s membership in the Anglican Communion — whatever that means — above all other considerations.
I love analogies, so here’s one:
• Tracey Lind’s raising the possibility of withdrawing from the AC was akin to a politician arguing that his state should withdraw from the National Governor’s Association;
• whereas Mark Lawrence’s comments were like a gubernatorial candidate, in a state with significant secessionist sympathies, refusing to commit to staying in the Union.
While it’s NO SURPRISE that the IRD is out to attack Tracey Lind, this is a weak argument. Apples and oranges to be specific. What Lind asks is the very same question ALL in TEC are asking themselves these days (whether outloud or in silent prayer). Do we, as TEC, want to stay in the Communion? Given the bashing we have received by their complete unwillingness to understand either our polity or our gospel, it is hardly an unreasonable question to explore in conversation, sermons, conferences throughout the church. But, make no mistake, it is worlds apart from taking/hijacking TEC’s dioceses and parishes out of TEC, as Lawrence threatened to do, and becoming part of some global south church. That is pure and simple theft! Hardly the same, in fact, it’s a downright lame argument.
Fred says”Given the bashing we have received by their complete unwillingness to understand either [i]our[/i] polity or [i]our[/i] gospel…”(italics mine). Excuse me, I thought that the gospel is for all of us. Do I understand Fred to say that the reappraisers have one gospel, and the rest of have another?
Should read “rest of [i]us[/i] have another.
What Lind asks is the very same question ALL in TEC are asking themselves these days (whether outloud or in silent prayer). Do we, as TEC, want to stay in the Communion?
*ALL* in TEC, Fred??
Except, D.C. (#8), that the constitution of The Episcopal Church refers to the Anglican Communion (am I correct in remembering this?), while it is highly unlikely that any state constitution refers to membership in the National Governors’ Association.
Your analogy doesn’t work.
Neither, for that matter, does Mr Webb’s analogy work – although, unlike Fred’s contention in #9, supra, the cases are not as dissimilar as his “apples and oranges” metaphor would suggest.
#13 – They are very different. Lawrence talked about leaving TEC. Lind has NEVER said anything about leaving TEC.
Fred,
You’ve done this before, been called on it, yet continue to do it again, at the least here in # 9.
“ALL” (and I presume you mean “all”) are NOT asking the question you outlined. Mark+ is not asking that question, I am not asking that question. Whether or not YOU are asking that question, by blindly categorizing ALL you simply disrespect, even refuse to accept, be tolerant of, ignore, my rightful existence within this Church. Why in Christ’s Name would you limit your priestly ministry in such a way?
Now, if this is what Lind is doing and saying, too, then why – on this matter alone – would I, or anyone in Chicago who will be in a position to vote for her, even consider that the Holy Spirit would lead us to disecern her as a Godly possibility as bishop? This is wrong-headed, and as divisive as any other person or groups you may rail against. You are wrong to support her in her bid for election if only on this point.
But you are right about this part: apples and oranges.
RGEaton
Fred,
You want to talk, or just take pot shots?
We can talk online or offline.
RGEaton
Fred, the question is: Why are you committed to TEC? Will you always be committed to the TEC regardless of what TEC stands for? Or, are you committed to the MDGs as indicated on TEC websites? In other words I am committed to my country but only so long as the country stands for the principals in our founding documents.
Perhaps I’ve got it wrong. I have tried to figure out what TEC is committed to and the MDGs are featured prominently on the web sites.
How is Lind’s view concerning leaving the Anglican Communion substantially different from the view concerning leaving the Episcopal Church allegedly held by Mark Lawrence at the time of his first election as Bishop of South Carolina — the view that lead to the smear campaign against Lawrence?
This is a no-brainer:
-(+)Lawrence talks about leaving TEC
-Lind+ talks about leaving the AC
Is that any more radical a statement of potential leave-taking than what Lind said?
Absolutely! One is arguing for internal schism and the other for external. A priest within one Province wants to dismantle that Province versus a priest in the same Province arguing for disassociation while keeping the Province in tact. Worlds apart.
Perhaps I’ve got it wrong. I have tried to figure out what TEC is committed to and the MDGs are featured prominently on the web sites.
John A., I am actually visually impaired (vision of 20/200 corrected) and the first thing I see on the website is the Life and Work of the Church. Perhaps you made several wrong clicks?
The life and work of the Episcopal Church begins in local congregations, expands across dioceses, and extends into global Anglican relationships. Together, as the body of Christ, we worship and work for God’s kingdom to come, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide us.
Through baptism, we all become ministers, called to carry on Christ’s work of reconciliation in the world and to take our place in the life, worship, and governance of the church. Come explore the ministry, mission, and mystery of the Episcopal Church. Come see how we are each being called to serve Christ in new and wonderful ways!
The best thing that could happen would be for Lind to be elected. It might actually provide the clarity that some apparently still lack and cause them to realize TEC is gone. TEC is an apostate church. The question is not whether to go or stay, but simply where to go.
A closer analogy would be Virginia and West Virginia at the Civil War. Virginia debated whether it should remain part of the Union or separate to from the CSA. West Virginia debated whether to start part of Virginia or part of the Union.
Membership in the Anglican Communion (or at least communion with the See of Canterbury has been part of TECUSA since its inception. If it was not important then why was +White consecrated by Canterbury? Why did TECUSA (then PECUSA) revise it’s first proposed prayer book based on input from Cantebury? It may not have been at the forefront of being an Episcopalian before but that is probably because there has never been such a rift between what TECUSA and the Anglican Communion teach.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#15 – Rob – I am not trying to take pot shots. I apologize if it seemed that way. I also stand corrected. I should not have said “ALL”. I meant ALL who support the full inlcusion of gays and lesbians in the church. The disctinction, for me, between these two bishops, is very simple. One has no intention of leaving TEC. The other has said he might. I don’t see much similarity there.
Phil Snyder [#21], you apparently see the Anglican Communion as being equivalent to the Union, and TEC as equivalent to one of the seceding states. That’s a very, very different view of what it means to be an Episcopalian and an Anglican.
(At my very-orthodox parish, it sets my teeth on edge every Sunday when our intercession for clergy in the Prayers of the People Form VI starts out, not with “For N, our Presiding Bishop,” but with “For N, Archbishop of Canterbury; N, our Presiding Bishop ….” This started a few years ago, presumably with the approval of our rector, but I strongly suspect it was one of our former associates, now a rector in Fort Worth, who instigated it. These clergy are obviously trying subtly to propagandize parishioners into thinking it’s more important to be an Anglican than an Episcopalian. Prayers for the ABC are meet and right, but they properly belong at the end of that intercession, as in “… for N, Archbishop of Canterbury; and for all bishops and other ministers.”)
————–
The Rev. Mark Harris has posted a not-to-be-missed response to Mr. Webb; here’s an excerpt:
“you apparently see the Anglican Communion as being equivalent to the Union, and TEC as equivalent to one of the seceding states. That’s a very, very different view of what it means to be an Episcopalian and an Anglican.”
Since when?
“These clergy are obviously trying subtly to propagandize parishioners into thinking it’s more important to be an Anglican than an Episcopalian”
In the REAL WORLD, it is. On the Reappraiser Bizzarro planet, it might be different…
TEC is NOTHING more than a province within the Anglican Communion. It is NOT it’s own thing. Whoever told you that lied to you.
DC.
I, too, swore that I would uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church. That vow was in answer to this question:
“Will you be loyal to the doctrine and worship of Christ [b] as this Church has received them[/b]?
The verb and tense are important. “Has Received” not “may construe” or “decides to change” or “votes in General Convention.” The revelation has been given and we are bound by it. So, when the political body of our province runs roughshod over the Revelation, we who are clergy are bound by our vows to uphold the revelation first and the political insitution second.
As another argument, our first vow as Christians and the first vow we reaffirm at every baptism is to “…continue in the Apostles teaching and fellowship.” Breaking with the Anglican Communion is to break with the Apostles fellowship (and is the direct result of breaking with the Apostles teaching) and to become a simple American denomination, not part of the Church Catholic. (Unless, of course, we broke with Canterbury to unite with Rome or Constaninople, but the chances of that happening are not even worth mentioning).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Brian (#19),
I see what you mean. I went to the priorities section. One of the links was to Episcope which appears to be some kind of news letter. The other three links each featured the MDGs. I had expected something more along the lines of Church planting or congregational development. I don’t understand why the MDGs get such visibility if they are not the core mission of the church.
Isn’t the analogy the following analogy a more applicable one to this situation, and forgive me for not coming up with a better, non-U.S. centered one…
Lawrence’s position is like saying I will always be an American, but I might not always be an Ohioan (I realize Fr. Lawrence is not an Ohioan, though we would welcome him), while Lind is saying that I will always be an Ohioan, but perhaps not always an American.
The difference is in the heighth of the rung on the ladder that you cling to.
John A.,
I do think there is a concentration on the MDGs but I don’t understand the objection (not just yours, but it is an obsession on reasserter sites). Doesn’t Jesus call us to the servant heart? By serving the poor and needy, we are living out the Gospel and the Grace that God has given us. All I can think is that people think that the focus should be exclusively on salvation/evangelism.
r-storm [#27], I like your analogy, which states your position very pithily. A lot of us, though, see it more this way:
• Lawrence is saying (in effect), I’ll always be an EU citizen, but I might not always be a British subject.
• Lind, on the other hand is saying, I’ll always be British, but whether I’m an EU citizen will depend entirely on whether Britain happens to be a member of the EU.
Thank you D.C., much more on spot than mine. Perhaps a career awaits you writing for the SAT board = )
Also, loved your use of “pithily.” Brought a smile…
Blessings to ya…
I much prefer Lawrence’s “I’ll always be a Christian, whether or not I am an Episcopalian” to Lind’s, “I’ll always be an Episcopalian, whether or not I am a Christian.”
Brian (#28),
I grew up in a missionary environment and saw good schools and hospitals but they were of limited value in spreading the Gospel. Now I work in corporate America. Companies that thrive have a clearly defined mission which they pursue relentlessly. Traditional mainline denominations wither while “On Fire” pentecostal groups are thriving according to The Economist.
Caring Christians, as individuals, must support secular or non-Christian good works but [i]everything[/i] that the Church does must be [i]directly[/i] related to the primary mission. The trouble with the TEC is that the behaviors do not match the stated priorities. If the MDGs take priority then what activities and cash flows reflect those priorities? When I look at Lambeth resolutions from recent decades it appears that the Anglican Communion has lost it’s way too. At the top levels TEC and the AC are drifting. There are good things happening here and there just as they are in a dying company. Without a driving purpose no company or church will survive.
What double standard?
ECUSA’s ruling reappraisers show perfect consistency. ECUSA’s autonomy trumps the Anglican Communion. ECUSA’s sovereignty trumps any purported autonomy of orthodox dioceses and congregations. We need hardly mention that it trumps orthodox clergy and congregations’ purported rights of conscience.
This consistency of principle is pure, simple, and straightforward. It can be expressed in the following symbolic logic:
ECUSA > Anglican Communion
ECUSA > orthodox diocese
ECUSA > orthodox congregation
. . . where “ECUSA†represents ECUSA under revisionist control, “>“ means “greater than,†and â€<" means "lesser than" We can elegantly summarize these relationships as follows: Anglican Communion < ECUSA > diocese > congregation
In other words, ECUSA ÃœBER ALLES!