(Anglican Ink) Church of Eng. will not make any "premature" statement or judgment re:South Carolina

This post is ‘Sticky’ and will remain at the head of the page, the first of six sticky posts. Please scroll down to below the CofE General Synod Post to find new posts
(Please first take the time to read the transcript there).

Bishop [Christopher] Hill said that “on Saturday, a Special Diocesan Convention endorsed the South Carolina withdrawal from the Episcopal Church. The Bishop has stated that their position would be to remain within the Anglican Communion as an extra-provincial Diocese. The Episcopal Church on the other hand maintains that General Convention consent is necessary for any withdrawal. So the legal and indeed theological and ecclesiological position is extremely complicated. And it is absolutely not certain.”

The bishop concluded “it has therefore not been possible to consider the consequences for our relationships at this immediate stage. And, in my view, any statement just at this point would be premature.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Provinces, Church of England (CoE), Ecclesiology, Episcopal Church (TEC), Pastoral Theology, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: South Carolina, TEC Diocesan Conventions/Diocesan Councils, Theology

14 comments on “(Anglican Ink) Church of Eng. will not make any "premature" statement or judgment re:South Carolina

  1. Ralph says:

    In my limited understanding of England-speak, this could be taken to mean nearly anything. As someone noted in the comments, we will all wait to see who doesn’t get invited to Bp. Welby’s enthronement.

    Perhaps Pageantmaster would translate Bp. Hill’s words for us.

  2. tjmcmahon says:

    It is the usual- conservatives need to wait and see, liberals get essentially what they want- which is no direct statement of recognition of either SC or ACNA. The SC situation is a bit murkier, since the ABoC made certain representations 3 years ago to the “Communion Partner” bishops. However, if I were the CP bishops, given the lukewarm statement on SC, I would not be holding my breath on Canterbury (old or new) backing them up when their turn comes on KJS chopping block.
    What is interesting in this statement, however, is that it implies that the communion between CoE and TEC is indeed impaired, as it is with all members of the Communion other than NZ, Canada, Brazil, Scotland and Wales (and probably one or 2 others). And this is simply evident because if a true full communion relationship existed, the proper response would have been: “We recognize the validity of TEC depositions, and no person removed from the ordained ministry by TEC may function as an ordained minister in the CoE.”

  3. David Hein says:

    Anglicans and Episcopalians are better at sorting out full communion with Lutherans than they are at maintaining full communion within their own family.

  4. Cennydd13 says:

    Well, look at it this way: It’s a 50/50 split…..and it could go either way. It all depends on which way the ball bounces; at least from my perspective. There’s a lot of wishy-washyness here.

  5. BlueOntario says:

    The response to the questions make interesting comparison and contrast to traditional British foreign policy, which was to muddle along when things changed until the situation solved itself and then to recognize the de facto solution(s). But that’s apples and oranges, that is.

    Re: #2, you point out an interesting thing when you say it implies there are problems with relationships throughout the Anglican Communion. I’m sure that’s why the AbC and his staff are pushing the idea of regional networks to work it out among themselves vice having some standard of doctine everyone agrees makes one “Anglican.” I would hazard that this tactic is being used as a way of allowing the CofE to distance itself from past orthodoxy as much as anything else.

    And I agree with David Hein’s observation. But sometimes it’s easier to talk with one’s neighbors than with family.

  6. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    #1 Ralph
    [blockquote]Perhaps Pageantmaster would translate Bp. Hill’s words for us.[/blockquote]
    Bishop Christopher Hill did after all recently warmly welcome Bishop Mark to speak in his diocese along with Archdeacon Julian Henderson who is chairing the Synod Business Committee currently meeting going on now.

    Here goes my best stab at a translation:

    I agree with TJ above. KJS can take no comfort whatever from Bishop Christopher’s words on behalf of the Council for Christian Unity of the Church of England, which I think he co-chairs.

    Most of us are sick to the back teeth of the antics of the vicious Drama Queen who seeks to rule the collapsing Episcopal Church. Patience is out.

    George Conger understands English, even diplomatic English.

  7. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    I also think that this phrase is important:
    [blockquote]We should try to remain on good terms with all parties and avoid inflaming matters further.[/blockquote]
    Trans, both in relation to ACNA and South Carolina: ‘We recognize that there is a divorce which has gone on and we are not going to side with TEC against the other party. We will be talking to them too, and in due course, depending on how things go, we may well make formal relationships with the new organisations. However I think he recognises that the situation is fluid and developing, as indeed it is, as those congregations and dioceses outside of TEC continue to grow, or be persecuted out, as in the case of South Carolina, and indeed perhaps other dioceses.

  8. Ralph says:

    [blockquote]Most of us are sick to the back teeth of the antics of the vicious Drama Queen who seeks to rule the collapsing Episcopal Church. Patience is out.[/blockquote]
    Ah. Words that even I, a Southern Redneck, can understand. Thanks.

  9. Br. Michael says:

    However, by the time the AC actually does something to aid the US orthodox a lot of will have left both TEC and AC. It’s kind of like the lifeboat scene from Titanic when the one boat that goes back is too late.

  10. MichaelA says:

    If we take the long view, this is a significant change in attitude.

    For example, when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey consistently supported the Episcopal Church of USA under Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and condemned any attempt by orthodox congregations to escape liberal domination by ECUSA. He was apparently supported in this by all his bishops in CofE – none dissented, so far as I can recall.

    For example, when +Rucyahana of Rwanda extended episcopal oversight to an Anglican mission in Arkansas in 1998 (a mission which had been effectively rejected from TEC by its bishop), Lord Carey wrote to +Rucyahana: “It is my clear view that what you are doing is completely illegal and I hope you will quickly disentangle yourself from something that is quite unconstitutional”.

    Apparently the rampant liberal apostasy of PB Griswold and many leaders of ECUSA, and their blatant oppression of faithful clergy and congregations within ECUSA, simply didn’t register on Lord Carey’s radar. No doubt that was true of his fellow bishops in CofE also.

    Then in a circular letter to all Anglican bishops in 2000, ABC Carey wrote that he “cannot recognise the episcopal ministry” of two AMiA bishops unless and until they were “fully reconciled” with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold.

    In light of those events not so long ago, +Hill’s response is a vast improvement.

  11. SC blu cat lady says:

    Interesting comparison, MichaelA. I know I had forgotten about those events you described. Yes, by comparison, +Hill’s response is a vast improvement….. something to be thankful during this Thanksgiving week in the US.

    Pageantmaster, Love your translation at #6. Well done! Even this midwesterner understands that sort of plain English.

  12. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Support for the Gospel or Tradition?! Let us check in with Kate! We’ll get back to you! Promise! Pinky swear!

  13. Jimmy Hamilton-Brown says:

    I hope that you & Bishop Mark have seen the article by Bishop Dan Martins which has been published on “Fulcrum” website in the UK by Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne.

    ( I met you many years ago (1980s) when I stayed in Summerville at the Skardon’s house & have followed the sad story on your website with great & sympathetic interest. Perhaps this may prove a way out of the impasse, assuming of course that + Dan Martins has the facts right)

    Prayers & blessings in Jesus Jimmy Hamilton-Brown (Rev)

  14. SC blu cat lady says:

    JH-B+, Which Skardon? The Rev. Steve Skardon or his son, Steve Skardon, Jr. of SC Episcopalians “infamy”? Vast difference in their views.