The Deanery issued “A Call to Prayer†for Bishop Lawrence before, during and after the upcoming House of Bishop’s meeting at Camp Allen in TX, March 19-24.
Is +Lawrence attending this meeting? He said he would no longer participate. Or are the prayers for any possible discussion/action at this meeting regarding +Lawrence’s future?
Brian, (as of what I know now) Bishop Lawrence is attending. He didn’t say he wouldn’t participate. I do wish people would read carefully what others say and not read into them what isn’t there.
For the record, here is the resolution from the 2009 Special Diocesan Convention in South Carolina
2. “That this diocese authorize the bishop and standing committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions . and that the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).â€
Approved on a vote by orders.
Clergy: 87 yes, 17 no, 1 abstaining.
Parishes: 39 yes, 8 no.
Missions: 14, yes, 3 no, 2 divided, 1 abstaining.
Note: it is a decision of the leaders–together. It is a decision “to begin withdrawing…” The bodies aren’t specified. Neither is the timing. The desire was to support a principle and leave the discernment as to how the process will work exactly to leaders in their own context and with their own prayerful consideration.
I sympathize with +Lawrence’s situation. I also recognize that this is a deeply personal issue. However, the resolution does indeed speak for itself. How can you argue that the bodies are not defined when the HOB has “assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons” not once but twice in assenting to the ordination of two partnered homosexual bishops.? As for the time, it seems that immediately after the assent to a second partnered homosexual bishop, the intent to withdraw might kick in.
You routinely argue that Windsor and other documents are plain on their face. If this resolution calls for no date of action and no removal from bodies associated with the above, then it is not even a declaration of intent.
Prayers can be found [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/south-carolina-diocese/]here[/url] and [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/south-carolina-diocesan-convention/]here[/url].
Kendall, with all due respect it looks like you’re spinning. From a fair reading of the resolution a reasonable person would believe Lawrence would not be attending the meeting.
Perhaps this is not why you wanted us to read the newsletter, but the youth ministry apprenticeship caught my eye. We will have three part time youth ministry interns at our church in the fall and are in the process of developing a full-time youth ministry internship. How has the apprenticeship model worked for SC?
Kendall, I read the resolution and remembered the wording and yet was surprised to hear Bp. Lawrence was attending the House of Bishop’s meeting. I see your explanation so that clarifies things a bit. But it makes me think, how long does it take to not attend HOB meetings? Or conversely, what purpose is served by attending after passing such a resolution and so publicly? I don’t expect to hear detailed answers and respect your very good and honorable bishop’s decisions. I was simply surprised.
[blockquote]”to begin withdrawing”[/blockquote]
It seems to me that the diocese has authorized him to begin by working for actions in conformity with “Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them†and if he is not heard the diocese has authorized him to withdraw if he thinks it is necessary.
#6, it isn’t spinning, it is interpreting what is actually there. The process of beginning to withdraw is not the same as “commence immediate withdrawal.” I also think the bodies not being specified is important, as there are some obvious ones, but there may be others less clear which are impacted.
RE: “From a fair reading of the resolution a reasonable person would believe Lawrence would not be attending the meeting.”
Well I may not be a reasonable person but when I first read the resolution back when it was up for a vote it seemed like it offered a whole lot of options for differentiation as Bishop Lawrence and the Standing Committee might decide over the years.
But I have long noticed that people want — particularly with Bishop Lawrence and other strong differentiators within TEC — to box them in and go with their particular favored interpretation that allows the very fewest and least options. The libs, in particular. . .
I also think the bodies not being specified is important, as there are some obvious ones, but there may be others less clear which are impacted.
I can see the point on timing. However, the HOB is the only body that has twice “assented to actions [in +Lawrence’s opinion] contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons,…”
I would also note a conversation that I had with a sitting diocesan Bishop immediately following the deposition of Bp Duncan, who said to me, “If he had just attended the meetings, we wouldn’t have deposed him.” I think it is a good idea to continue to attend HOB meetings, General Convention meetings, or whatever seems good for informational purposes. I would also participate in things or TEC organizations that do the work of the Lord (or seem to), and not those that don’t, and therein lies the need for discernment. And I don’t subscribe to the idea that participation shows approval.
RE: “I would also note a conversation that I had with a sitting diocesan Bishop immediately following the deposition of Bp Duncan, who said to me, “If he had just attended the meetings, we wouldn’t have deposed him.â€
I’m not at all surprised to read such a telling, inane, and cowardly statement.
1) They would have deposed him, first, because KJS wanted them to.
2) It reveals just how infuriated the libs are for conservatives not pretending to go along and “acting happy” as they shred Scripture for their little fad.
Just the rhetoric of a petty, bullying little tin-pot tyrant, doing what he wants because he’s outraged.
Re: #1 and #6 –
Not to belabor the point, but…to me, the resolution to which you referenced, is akin to Congress authorizing the President to use military force – e.g. Iraq – though not [i]requiring[/i] or dictating the type of force to be used, nor the timing of the force.
The Deanery issued “A Call to Prayer†for Bishop Lawrence before, during and after the upcoming House of Bishop’s meeting at Camp Allen in TX, March 19-24.
Is +Lawrence attending this meeting? He said he would no longer participate. Or are the prayers for any possible discussion/action at this meeting regarding +Lawrence’s future?
Brian, (as of what I know now) Bishop Lawrence is attending. He didn’t say he wouldn’t participate. I do wish people would read carefully what others say and not read into them what isn’t there.
For the record, here is the resolution from the 2009 Special Diocesan Convention in South Carolina
Note: it is a decision of the leaders–together. It is a decision “to begin withdrawing…” The bodies aren’t specified. Neither is the timing. The desire was to support a principle and leave the discernment as to how the process will work exactly to leaders in their own context and with their own prayerful consideration.
This is part of that.
I sympathize with +Lawrence’s situation. I also recognize that this is a deeply personal issue. However, the resolution does indeed speak for itself. How can you argue that the bodies are not defined when the HOB has “assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons” not once but twice in assenting to the ordination of two partnered homosexual bishops.? As for the time, it seems that immediately after the assent to a second partnered homosexual bishop, the intent to withdraw might kick in.
You routinely argue that Windsor and other documents are plain on their face. If this resolution calls for no date of action and no removal from bodies associated with the above, then it is not even a declaration of intent.
Prayers can be found [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/south-carolina-diocese/]here[/url] and [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/south-carolina-diocesan-convention/]here[/url].
God be with you Bishop Lawrence. May the words of your mouth and the meditations of your heart be always acceptable to Him.
Kendall, with all due respect it looks like you’re spinning. From a fair reading of the resolution a reasonable person would believe Lawrence would not be attending the meeting.
Perhaps this is not why you wanted us to read the newsletter, but the youth ministry apprenticeship caught my eye. We will have three part time youth ministry interns at our church in the fall and are in the process of developing a full-time youth ministry internship. How has the apprenticeship model worked for SC?
Kendall, I read the resolution and remembered the wording and yet was surprised to hear Bp. Lawrence was attending the House of Bishop’s meeting. I see your explanation so that clarifies things a bit. But it makes me think, how long does it take to not attend HOB meetings? Or conversely, what purpose is served by attending after passing such a resolution and so publicly? I don’t expect to hear detailed answers and respect your very good and honorable bishop’s decisions. I was simply surprised.
[blockquote]”to begin withdrawing”[/blockquote]
It seems to me that the diocese has authorized him to begin by working for actions in conformity with “Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them†and if he is not heard the diocese has authorized him to withdraw if he thinks it is necessary.
I see this as an authorization, not as a command.
#6, it isn’t spinning, it is interpreting what is actually there. The process of beginning to withdraw is not the same as “commence immediate withdrawal.” I also think the bodies not being specified is important, as there are some obvious ones, but there may be others less clear which are impacted.
RE: “From a fair reading of the resolution a reasonable person would believe Lawrence would not be attending the meeting.”
Well I may not be a reasonable person but when I first read the resolution back when it was up for a vote it seemed like it offered a whole lot of options for differentiation as Bishop Lawrence and the Standing Committee might decide over the years.
But I have long noticed that people want — particularly with Bishop Lawrence and other strong differentiators within TEC — to box them in and go with their particular favored interpretation that allows the very fewest and least options. The libs, in particular. . .
I also think the bodies not being specified is important, as there are some obvious ones, but there may be others less clear which are impacted.
I can see the point on timing. However, the HOB is the only body that has twice “assented to actions [in +Lawrence’s opinion] contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons,…”
I would also note a conversation that I had with a sitting diocesan Bishop immediately following the deposition of Bp Duncan, who said to me, “If he had just attended the meetings, we wouldn’t have deposed him.” I think it is a good idea to continue to attend HOB meetings, General Convention meetings, or whatever seems good for informational purposes. I would also participate in things or TEC organizations that do the work of the Lord (or seem to), and not those that don’t, and therein lies the need for discernment. And I don’t subscribe to the idea that participation shows approval.
RE: “I would also note a conversation that I had with a sitting diocesan Bishop immediately following the deposition of Bp Duncan, who said to me, “If he had just attended the meetings, we wouldn’t have deposed him.â€
I’m not at all surprised to read such a telling, inane, and cowardly statement.
1) They would have deposed him, first, because KJS wanted them to.
2) It reveals just how infuriated the libs are for conservatives not pretending to go along and “acting happy” as they shred Scripture for their little fad.
Just the rhetoric of a petty, bullying little tin-pot tyrant, doing what he wants because he’s outraged.
What a disgrace.
14 Sarah – totally agree – that’s like the abusive husband that beats up his wife, then says that her actions or lack there of, made him do it……….
Re: #1 and #6 –
Not to belabor the point, but…to me, the resolution to which you referenced, is akin to Congress authorizing the President to use military force – e.g. Iraq – though not [i]requiring[/i] or dictating the type of force to be used, nor the timing of the force.