f) With the support of the Ecclesiastical Authority a special Diocesan Convention held in October 2009 modified the declaration of conformity, signed by ordinands to the Priesthood or Deaconate, as specified in the Book of Common Prayer and the TEC Constitution”¦.
This is just a wrong understanding of what the Diocesan Convention approved. There has been no modification of the Declaration of Conformity. The ordinands sign only the Declaration as it appears in the Constitution & Canons of TEC and the Book of Common Prayer. The statement referenced is read as clarification of the teaching of this Church for the edification of the faithful in the midst of the many controversies today. I would ask those in the Forum which of the expressions of our heritage they find so offensive””what is expressed in the Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral or the theology of the historic prayer books?
(For an intriguing discussion of this matter I suggest members of the Episcopal Forum or other interested persons read a scholarly article in the Journal of Episcopal Canon Law by Jonathan Michael Gray, an assistant Professor of Church History at the Virginia Seminary http://www.vts.edu/canonlaw )
g) With the support of the Bishop, the Standing Committee of the Diocese proposed six Resolutions for the Reconvened Convention to be held on October 15, 2010”¦..
In March we recessed the Diocesan Convention with the constitutional question still pending: The ability of a diocese to govern its common life in a manner that is obedient to the teaching of Holy Scripture (to which every ordained person in this Church has given his or her verbal and written assent), the received heritage of The Episcopal Church, and in accordance with the Constitution of TEC. This has remained unresolved or, more accurately stated, entirely unaddressed by the Presiding Bishop; therein leaving in question our ability to pursue our mission, free from unauthorized intrusions.
God bless and keep you all.
Thank you Bishop Lawrence for your witness.
Prayers ascending for Bishop Lawrence and the people of the Diocese of South Carolina. Please pray for them daily.
Outstanding response, in both content and tone, to a rather whiny set of complaints.
Thank you, Bishop Lawrence, for your response. You are truly a Godly man and the VAST, VAST majority of this Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina love you and your leadership. May God continue to bless you as you endure these attacks upon your Godly character and leadership.
I am waiting with bated breath for Bishop Waldo’s encouraging response to Bishop Lawrence’s letter.
Cafe is already hard at work assembling a response and arguing Title IV is innocuous and why the complaints only now. I can be corrected, but the enhancement of the PB’s role was not the subject of long ranging discussion at all, but was put into the most recent changes.
#6, in this region, I’m waiting to hear from both Bps. Waldo and Benhase. Not to mention every bishop in the entire TEC. This affects every single one of them, and their dioceses.
fwiw, I’ve seen a revisionist priest drop ‘Episcopal’ from the church name. The word ‘Episcopal’ is now associated with litigation and is considered a handicap, rather than an asset.
If one mentions the word “Episcopal” around where I live, eyes roll every time. It is embarrassing…such is the once great denomination in a matter of a few short years and a lot of liberal tug.
I think this is a mixed bag.
I’m encouraged that our Bishop admits that parishes (note the plural) have been planning to/attempting to change documents and to hear him say he’s addressed those parish leaders (not discouraged them, I guess, but “counseled patience”). The explanation that this was handled “pastorally” is a bit odd–church deeds and governing documents are public, and proposed changes to such documents should be broadcast loud and clear. Bishop Lawrence’s position on this matter should be clear and public as well. This is the first time he’s addressed this issue, and his statement may counter the fear that his handling of the the St. Andrews case was a tacit encouragement for others to break away.
Discouraging is the dodge of the issue of “Episcopal” references disappearing in Diocesan media by using anecdotal evidence about the old “Episcopal Church Welcomes You” signage. Luckily his response is posted on the (Episcopal) Diocese of South Carolina website, which has been scrubbed of references to TEC. As an irony fan I like the juxtaposition of the response and the evidence to the contrary right there on the same computer screen.
For the rest, of course he sees no problems with the recent Diocesan convention resolutions and the redefinition of “discipline” in the oath of conformity to exclude the constitution and canons…that’s why the Forum letter was addressed to the House of Bishops.
Lastly, the sentence
“Perhaps in their anxiety they have done us all a favor—indeed, presenting me with a teachable moment for this diocese and, dare I hope to believe, for others as well who may have read their letter”
opens the door for better communication, but the door is slammed shut by the Bishop’s familiar war rhetoric in the closing–we all want to believe we’re Christians soldiers fighting the good fight. Declaring those who hold differing theological opinions as enemies can rally the troops, and give a righteous patina to what is really grubby factionalism (and I count myself in that description).
If the diocese is at “war” with TEC (or the “trajectory” of TEC), then why is there “much need for listening carefully to one another?” Wouldn’t listening to your opponents run counter to the concept of war? First Paragraph Bishop Lawrence is thoughtful, and even displays a hint of empathy. I’ve seen that Bishop speak and admire him in spite of myself. Last Paragraph Bishop Lawrence throws some red meat out there for his base, rehashing the “Battle Speech” he made at the 219th convention.
If this is war, I guess this Episcopal Forum is a tiny resistance cell in the otherwise militantly orthodox Diocese of South Carolina.
Hey I like that, it makes me feel courageous too!
#11 Dan,
What exactly is the Episcopal Forum’s stance on the Title IV revisions to the canons of the Episcopal Church? Certainly you couldn’t support canons that are unconstitutional in and of themselves, nor the precedent they might set once implemented?
My great-Granddaughter lives in OK. Until this year, she had never gone to church where I play the organ.. On the drive here with my daughter, they were discussing their plans, and her grandmother told her they were going to church where her greatgrandmother would play. The girl (age 13) asked what kind of church it was. My daughter said, “Episcopal”.. My ggrandaughter was silent for a few minutes, and then asked: “Is greatgrannie even a Christian?” Of course she was assured I was. However, if you think of the reputation of the E church, its little wonder the child asked.
I am truly embarressed by TEC. There is little to be proud of, except of course for +Lawrence and the majority of clergy and congregations in DioSC. Thank God for that.
Grandmother in SS
Mr. Ennis should be reminded that with in TEC there are a number of dioceses whose constitutions say they accede to the constitution and canons of the TEC; a number of dioceses who accede only to the Canons of TEC; a number of dioceses who accede only to the Constitution of TEC, and a number of dioceses who accede to General Convention. Hat tip to the Anglican Curmudgeon: Link is here:http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/ecusas-hierarchy-rip.html
St. Luke’s Hilton Head recently changed their sign to “an Episcopal Church in the Anglican Tradition” – and their web site home page makes no mention of Anglican or Episcopal.
11,
“I guess this Episcopal Forum is a tiny resistance cell in the otherwise militantly orthodox Diocese of South Carolina.”
I don’t consider it any such thing. I feel it is a plant by the liberals in power to continue their war in places they should not…being “Christian” as they are, you know. It is, as you say, “tiny”, yet with millions of dollars behind it to do the bidding of an angel of God that was cast from heaven. One cannot serve both God and mammon. Coose this day.
gimme an “H”!!
God bless Bishop Lawrence.!
Why do those of “The Episcopal Forum” believe that suing a congregation will somehow get them back, or “preserve the property”. Bp Lawrence’s response is pastoral and appropriate. We can see how TEC’s actions work. “The Episcopal Forum” is just mad that Bp Lawrence is not going to leap off of the same precipice.