Jesse Zink’s “Why Provinces Matter” and the responses from William G. Witt and Colin Podmore [TLC, May 26] illustrate the range of opinions on what South Carolina’s ultimate ecclesial structure should be, from standalone province to joining the Anglican Church in North America. One thing in common to all of the initial essays, however, was the recognition that any decision on ultimate structure might still be some time away.
This recognition has also been the starting point of the Anglican Communion Institute in our work on this issue in the last several months. We believe that South Carolina’s current status does not necessarily present a problem in need of immediate resolution, but rather inheres in the nature of this dispute. Taking our cue both from Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Instruments of Communion, we have proposed that the guiding principle of the next season for South Carolina is “provisionality.” During this period ultimate decisions are deferred precisely because they are premature. Bishop Lawrence has stressed this on many occasions. The rupture with the Episcopal Church is too fresh with many unresolved issues; the ensuing litigation is only beginning, not nearing an end. This is not the time to make such a momentous decision as that regarding the ultimate future of this diocese, which predates the formation of the Episcopal Church.
True enough, the Diocese of SC remains what it has been since 1789. These ideas are an interesting starting point for our recognition while we figure out what and where we belong in the Anglican world. I wish the ideas had been described more perhaps a second article or did I miss the explanation?
Mr. McCall’s comments are very well presented and reflect a strong and meaningful desire to achieve a result superior to the status quo with regard to the status of former dioceses. However, this desire seems simply unreachable in any foreseeable time. Over many years, TEC’s apparently clear positioning of itself in the ranks of stridently liberal denominations, in contrast with its former position as a denomination having something of an “inclusionary” attitude towards a conservative minority, has, unsurprisingly, resulted in large-scale departures from TEC’s ranks. The problem with a provisional arrangement for a disaffected diocese seems akin to asking passengers on a vessel to accept the vessel being steered on a course with no known destination. I have no current affiliation with TEC nor ACNA, however, I believe that people seek some clear form of identity and the associated affirmation that such identity can provide, and thus, asking people to accept something totally nebulous, is unrealistic and falls short of meeting a real need. Although I’m not a canon lawyer, I don’t accept Mr, McCall’s view of potentially extremely protracted legal issues involving South Carolina. It appears to me that that with regard to current and potential litigation involving the Diocese in which Bishop Lawrence serves, there’s a good likelihood of the Diocese prevailing in litigation with relatively unprotracted proceedings. The best solution for the Anglican Communion as a whole with regard to dealing with matters of departures from TEC over many years now, may be to boldly institute action of an emergency nature by expeditiously approving a separate province for the Diocese of South Carolina, sending the signal that the “deck” can be reshuffled if TEC or other provinces clearly demonstrate that they believe that, after all, it’s a good idea to meet a conservative minority from an attitude associated with respect and inclusion.