Something is Afoot in the Diocese of South Carolina

Something is afoot in the Diocese of South Carolina.  It is difficult to discern exactly what it will eventually be, except to say that DioSC will respond to what transpired at Gen Con 09.  And whatever they do will bear our observation and analysis, and our respect, for it will not be done lightly, and it will be done in a Godly, spiritual manner, with all due consideration for Scriptural guidance.

As you may recall, Bishop Mark Lawrence wrote prior to attending GenCon 09 that the time had passed for engaging in political maneuvering to try to defeat the revisionist agenda, and that he did not intend to waste his energy doing so in Anaheim.  His prediction was on the money, as resolutions were passed both setting aside any moratoria on consecration of LGBT Bishops, and laying the groundwork for formal adoption os same-sex marriage rites.

Since GenCon 09, Bishop Lawrence has not let moss grow on this issue.  He again wrote to the clergy of the Diocese a lengthy letter, including this analysis:

Where is The Episcopal Church after General Convention 2009?

First, TEC has contravened the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and breached the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion. At General Convention 2003 the debate centered on the clarity of Lambeth 1.10. At GC’06 it focused on the Windsor Report and process which had less clarity than Lambeth 1.10. Here in 2009 Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor were hardly mentioned and the debate returned occasionally to B033 which of course was far weaker than what Lambeth 1.10 or Windsor called for. The trajectory is clear—greater and greater autonomy, license, and stepping apart. Yet the official spin of TEC continues unabated.

Secondly, during our debate some protested that we are moving too quickly. The question is not how quickly we are moving. If blessing same-sex unions is morally wrong now, it will be morally wrong in the future. The matter in dispute in TEC is not like the one St. Paul writes about in I Corinthians 8 of a morally neutral activity such as eating meat offered to idols. In that situation whether to eat or refrain from eating was to be guided by the conscience of other Christians. But this question is completely different, it involves the nature of Christian marriage and the teaching of the universal church about the proper context in which to use the gift of sexuality. The problem isn’t the speed at which the train is moving down the rail: it is the destination to which it is headed.

Thirdly, while the full significance of TEC’s adoption of C056 is not yet clear to me, this much is clear: In allowing Bishops “generous discretion” for granting the blessings of same-sex “marriage” we have entered into a new era of pastoral and canonical chaos, with General Convention’s approval.

The Bishop concluded his letter by saying: 

There is an increasingly aggressive displacement within this Church of the gospel of Jesus Christ’s transforming power by the “new” gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity which seeks to subsume all in its wake. It is marked by an increased evangelistic zeal and mission that hints at imperialistic plans to spread throughout the Communion. This calls for a bold response. It is of the utmost importance that we find more than just a place to stand. Indeed, it is imperative that we find a place to thrive; a place that is faithful, relational and structural—and so we shall!  (my emphasis)

Following that letter, Bishop Lawrence called a meeting of Diocesan leadership.  According to +Kendal Harmon's report, the meeting lasted approximately 12 hours.  To quote from the Diocesan webpage, "on Tuesday, July 28, the Standing Committee, the Deans and the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina met at the Church of the Good Shepherd. The atmosphere was prayerful, focused, intense, deeply trusting of one another and the Bishop, and with a sense that the stakes are very, very high. There was broad general agreement about the basic direction the Diocese needs to take. The Bishop will give the arguments for this direction and specific suggested steps at the clergy gathering on August 13."

Since the July 28 meeting, Fr. Steve Wood said on his blog, Treading Grain, "It’s time for the Diocese of South Carolina to join the new North American Province: Anglican Communion North America. Anything short will mark a complete failure of leadership."  He later clarified in a comment on Stand Firm that he was not trying to call out Bishop Lawrence:  "For the record, when I speak of “leadership” in SC I am not simply speaking of “diocesan leadership”, i.e., the bishop.  If I meant that, I would have said that.  When I speak of “leadership” I intend the broadest possible net to be cast: from the parish up through diocesan structures.  Also, for the record, I find +Mark to be an exceptional man in a very difficult position.  I do not envy him." 

It is widely reported that +Lawrence pledged, during the process of his election and approval as Bishop, that he would not lead DioSC out of TEO.  I wondered at the time what such a pledge really meant, because a Bishop cannot truly "lead" such a move by his or her own fiat, but it must be voted by the Standing Committee and Diocesan Convention. 

Commenter Suepie at Stand Firm says, however, that this is a misquote of what +Lawrence said, but rather his "pledge" was:  “I said I was willing to abide by the consecration vows of a bishop. They asked me what would I do to keep the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church. I said I will work at least as hard to keep the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as my brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church work to keep the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion. There is a mutual accountability we all have.”

Hmmm.  Since almost everyone now says TEO has chosen to walk apart, and Bishop Lawrence himself has characterized TEO's efforts by saying in his post-Convention letter:  "The trajectory is clear—greater and greater autonomy, license, and stepping apart" are all bets off now?  He is clearly treading somewhat carefully in this situation, and making no rash statements without the counsel and consent of Diocesan leadership, but one has to believe that his pre-consecration "pledge" may not hold much sway in determining DioSC's response to GenCon 09.

So, whither DioSC?  South Carolinians have long taken great pride in their independent streak, and in their courageous stands for their own beliefs.  Most anyone with a passing acquaintance with history knows that South Carolina was the first southern state to secede, doing so in December 1860.  But South Carolina also stood up to the Federal government, by itself, in 1829-32, and 1852, over oppressive tariffs passed by a northern-dominated Congress.  The state did not secede, but it was discussed, and resulted in compromises that forestalled the threat to the Union. 

My point?  It will not be a question of whether DioSC has the courage to take whatever course it chooses.  There is no question that Bishop Lawrence is highly principled and possessed of the moral courage to pursue the course he and the Diocesan leadership choose to pursue.  There is likewise little or no question that whatever choice they make, whether any of us ultimately agree, will not only be their own well-considered choice, but the one they believe will most effectively get their position across within TEO and within the Anglican Communion.

While there is no doubt that some proponents of the so-called "inside strategy" believe bolting to ACNA would be "unwise" at this time, I would not be surprised at some move, in some degree, by DioSC to unequivocally separate itself from TEO and 815.  Whether this ends up being the beginning of the withdrawal of DioSC from TEO, or a bolt by at least some of the parishes to join ACNA, or a declaration by the Diocese that it intends to sign on to an Anglican Covenant, or something else creative no one has considered, I doubt the status quo ante will remain much past August 13.

It is of the utmost importance that we find more than just a place to stand. Indeed, it is imperative that we find a place to thrive; a place that is faithful, relational and structural—and so we shall!

Comments

[Texanglican (R.W. Foster+)]

I certainly hope that DioSC bolts from TEC, and hopefully they will soon join ACNA. This business about individual TEC dioceses signing onto the Covenant and hence remaining on "Track I" while the rest of TEC is on "Track II" might be nice in theory, but it has no long-term survivability. When their present bishop retires or dies his replacement will have to be approved by a majority of the Track II TEC. Hence, it is inevitable that he will be more "moderate" than the present incumbent. And two bishops down the line from now I find it inconceivable that the orthodox dioceses still within TEC can maintain their steadfast character. ("Moderate" bishops attract "moderate"--and liberal--clergy.) The TEC ship is sinking and the orthodox "stayers" are barricading themselves inside an interior cabin in hopes of keeping the waters of heresy out. They need to jump ship while there is still an opportunity (a.k.a. while they still have enough strong leaders to accomplish the move).

Sadly, the interview Bishop Lawrence gave to Kevin Kalsten at Anaheim indicated that he had problems with ACNA, especially its "ecclesiology." I take that to refer to the continued semi-autonomy of AMIA inside ACNA. Let's face it, in South Carolina the long fight between the diocese and +Murphy over the property in Pauley's Island has so soured relationships that many in DioSC would have to hold their noses in order to join ACNA. Sad. But hopefully wise heads will prevail over hurt hearts and DioSC can be brought into the new province eventually. They simply must, however, get out from under TEC's Constitution and Canons ASAP. There future depends upon it!

[Trimble]

Texanglican, I agree about the need for DioSC, and many others, to jump ship from TEC, but also try to understand that taking that leap is not the easiest or clearest course for many.

Isn't it amazing how well the Titanic analogies continue to work?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

A very nice summation post David Trimble. I also agree with Steve Wood+ and Texanglican (R.W. Foster+).

Sarah Hey of StandFirm offers the following on the thread about Steve Wood and DioSC, and I was wondering if you fellows could weigh in on them because I don't really understand them:

(1) "As I’ve been saying for quite some time now, if things work out like they *might* work out, there will end up being three Anglican entities in the US: angry TEC, ACNA, and whatever configuration the various dioceses and parishes that remained within TEC end up being a part of."

Trimble, Foster, what is this third Anglican entity that Sarah Hey is thinking *might* occur? If you're in TEc, then whether TEc is "angry" or not, you're still in TEc. This doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it makes sense to you. If so, could you explain it?

(2) "Some people’s ecclesial reality stops at their diocese, other people’s do not at all. In my experience, those people simply won’t be able to remain within a pagan horrible corrupt national organization no matter how great their local chapter is.

I can do it."

Texanglican talked about ecclesiology in his comment. So with regards to ecclesiology, it seems that Sarah is affirming congregationalism, or at best "diocesanalism" (which ACI would contend for), and this seems like a severely disjointed understanding of historical Anglican ecclesiology.

What say thee?

[Trimble]

TU...D:

I, like you, am confused by these comments. I am more of the "you're either in TEO or you're not" school of thought, which is based in large part on the scriptural warnings about associating with false teachers, etc. The discussion of a so-called "third way" strikes me as only more splintering, which in the long run is not useful or tenable.

My belief is that there has been too much time, money, and energy wasted on these divisive battles. It is clear where TEO is going, and the longer this divisive stuff goes on, the less meaning the "Anglican" brand name will have. I believe that people have to make a choice, to either accede to what TEO is doing and stay on board, even as it sinks, or to move on to another organization like ACNA. Straddling the fence works for politicians, but, IMNSHO, should be a way to practice one's faith.

That said, I still hold tremendous respect for the so-called "inside strategy" people, for they have assumed a Quixotic burden to try to profess their faith in the spiritual wasteland that is TEO. I just disagree with their strategerie.

I tend to believe in "If you build it, they will come." ACNA will be far better off if it does not cultivate fights with TEO, but instead focuses on building an orthodox Anglican presence in North America. If it can successfully do so, then the Anglican world, or at least the orthodox portion of it, will come knocking in due course.

To answer your questions directly, then, I have no clue what third entity Sarah may be talking about. Whatever it may be, it will face a head-on fight with Schori, which I think is wasteful. Likewise, I have no clue what she means by her ecclesiology statement. Sarah is a far deeper thinker and philosopher on these matters than this poor lawyer-wretch.

[Trimble]

Correction - straddling the fence should NOT be a way to practice faith.

[Kendall Harmon]

Could you spell my first name with two ells please?

[Jeremy Bonner]

Interesting post, but I hope we can keep to a minimum the analogies with South Carolina's past.

John Caldwell Calhoun is one of the great tragic figures of the antebellum South, and a far more flawed individual than Mark Lawrence. He was also an opportunistic nationalist (one of the War Hawks) until the balance of political power shifted northwards.

More to the point, the debate over joining (or not joining) ACNA should not be something akin to the debate over secession.

The South never asserted - as do even the most federally minded members of ACNA - that it was a constituent member of a larger entity, whose authority the North had spurned. Rather, it argued that the North had violated the terms of the compact to which all states were party.

Frankly, while one can easily demonstrate that the North didn't enter the Civil War out of entirely pure motives, I still think it's hard to view secession and what followed simply in terms of resistance to an oppressive government.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Sarah is a far deeper thinker and philosopher on these matters than this poor lawyer-wretch."

I don't know if I'd stipulate to that one, counselor. Or if I did, I'd have to qualify it or nuance it to state that "deep" thinking or philosophizing is no guarantee of a sound, God-glorifying decision or judgment. Eg., ABC Rowan Williams is widely held to be a deep thinker and philosopher on these matters as well. What has that gotten the Anglican Communion?

BTW, thank you David for your substantive response to my inquiry.

With respect to Canon Harmon's important contribution to this comment thread:

"Could you spell my first name with two ells please?"

I believe he is concerned about your mistake when you wrote:

"According to +Kendal Harmon's report, the meeting lasted approximately 12 hours."

He's concerned about correcting this error. Upon noticing it, I can't help but observe that a "+" sign in front of the name designates someone who is a bishop. If I'm not mistaken, Canon Harmon is not a bishop. So that might be two mistakes you made in your sentence, counselor.

I might add, however, that this particular reader glossed over such trivialities and was much more keenly interested in the substantive aspects of your post.

Pax.

[Ron McKenzie]

Minor, picky point: I believe he's Kendall+ not +Kendall.

[Joseph F. Trimble]

David,

As a family matter, just where are you -- geographically speaking?

GI JOE (Trimble)(Louisiana)