While the statement leaves many questions unanswered””frankly, to my mind it appears to read like a complex statement of a complex decision in a complex time within a complex church. Nevertheless, I believe it is best to take it at face value (even while noting that this diocese has not recognized the constitutionality of the new disciplinary canon). For now given no more allegations from anonymous sources within the diocese it is my hope we can all get back to focusing our full attention on proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and to Glory of God the Father that the Church here in the Diocese of South Carolina may add daily to its number those who are being saved.
Please know our vocation has not changed. While making disciples and witnessing to the unassailable Truth of the Gospel to a hurting and troubled world, and speaking truth to power within the unfolding struggles of The Episcopal Church, as well as taking our place in the larger Anglican Communion, we are, as you have heard me say on many occasions, called by God to Make Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age.
I’m curious as to the history of the principle that one has the right to see one’s accusers face to face, and how those who framed the renovated Title IV rationalize dispensing with that principle. Anyone? Anyone?
When one can’t know who one’s accuser is, then the adjudication process is initiated by a ‘sub rosa’ investigative procedure and is and is suspect of having been poisoned by this ‘tainted fruit.’
When the progressive National Socialists took over dictatorial control of Germany in 1933, one of their chief methods of quashing dissent was through the use of un-named informants (who could literally be anybody) whose word was used to to punish anyone who disagreed with the National Socialist Party.
There was a name given to the effect this had on the German citizens. It was called the ‘Deutsche blick’ which referred to nervous glances used by citizens discussing ‘forbidden topics.’
This is a great statement in both tone and content. It is the edifying kind of thing that Christian leaders should produce in these situation – clear, gracious, has backbone.
Seeing the phrase ‘unable to certify abandonment of communion’ again in this context and apparently also said in a phone call, I can’t help thinking it was a very unfortunate phrase. If it was trying to aim for the idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and we failed to prove guilt (or certify abandonment) so the accused is ‘not guilty’, fair enough. But it does sound a bit like ‘they’ wanted to certify abandonment but couldn’t get a majority of the board to go along on the charges they had. An impression not helped by the chair’s little words of wisdom at the end of his letter communicating the result.
Hallelujah! This is a wonderful letter. I’ve been offline and out of touch for several days, both due to flu and internet troubles here. This is such great news to read as I quickly skim the blogs today!
May the Lord continue to pour out His blessings on +Mark and all in the Dio. of SC.
Praise God for +Lawrence. He is a hero of the faith, in a denomination sorely in need of rescuers, and in a world beset by sin.
Would love to know what the buzz about “Freeing +Lawrence” is on the House of Deputies list serve. Anyone have a sense what the liberal take is or are they mum?
Me too.