Special Convention Backs Politics of "Protest";
We are not leaving the Church, says Bishop
Scroll down for "Commentary on The Five Resolutions"
October 24, 2009 -- A
somber Special Convention, convened today behind closed doors, and
wasted little time approving by nearly four-to-one margins four
controversial resolutions aimed at a national Church the Diocese says
has "sinned." A fifth resolution expressing compassion for gays and lesbians was
tabled 182-117, after delegates struggled over amendments balancing
expressions of love, compassion, and condemnation.
Bishop Mark Lawrence said the actions of the Convention constitute a
"protest" in response to the Church's General Convention last July, and
a restructuring of future "engagement" between the Diocese and the
wider Church.
"When someone is deaf, sometimes you have to shout at them," explained Lawrence, when delegates asked if the resolutions meant the
Diocese was leaving the Episcopal Church.
Essentially
the
Convention was saying that its National Church has taken Jesus'
love-one-another commandment too far by including gays and lesbians in
the full life of the Church,
distancing itself from ancient Anglican traditions and theology, and
abandoning Biblical literalism as a central tenant of Faith.
Resolutions passed Saturday mean the Diocese will gradually withdraw
from governing bodies of the Episcopal Church, and move closer to
dissent groups, some of which hope to replace the Episcopal Church as
the sole Anglican presence in North America.
Lawrence said he would immediately withdraw from the General Convention
and the House of Bishops. However, he said he also intends to withdraw
from any national church organization that has "sinned" and did not
rule out groups like the Church Pension Group, which provides benefits
for "spouses" of clergy in same-gender relationships.
These Resolutions also mean that the Convention has given consent to
the Diocesan staff to implement a new interpretation of "mission",
which translates as creating alliances with other opponents of the
Episcopal Church throughout North America and the Anglican Communion.
While
the Bishop insists passage of the resolutions does not represent a
formal split from the National Church, there is little doubt the
Diocese has cast itself adrift
in a way that can only result in further isolation, risking its mission
as a vehicle for Christian ministry and proclamation of the Gospel.
The
Bishop's embrace of Canon Harmon's pretzel-like logic that disengaging
from national church bodies would actually result in more substantial
engagement seemed to go over the heads of most people.
Delegates were weary of Diocesan politics. The
tenor of the Special Convention was far more subdued than in 2003, when
an angry special convention in Summerville vigorously lashed out at the national
Church over the election of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson who is gay.
Stoked by Bishop Edward Salmon, delegates left that convention giving
themselves high-fives and pumping their fists in the air.
The more restrained tone at today's convention suggested that the
Diocese is getting weary of the rebellion against the national Church.
One longtime rector who voted for the resolutions out of loyalty to the
Bishop, described the Diocese's ongoing struggles with the national
Church as "crap."
Unbridled enthusiasm for the actions of the Convention was limited to hardliners.
Some clergy who supported the resolutions Saturday said they had
been pressured by the Diocese's Standing Committee, who
argued that a vote against the resolutions was a vote
against Lawrence. At least four of them told SC Episcopalians they voted the resolutions to avoid looking like they were not team players.
"It was clear that my life as a priest in this Diocese would be very unhappy if didn't go along. I voted for
these things and, yes, they're garbage." said
one clergyman, who thinks Lawrence is ignoring the real needs of the Diocese.
Young
radical clergy forced a vote by roll call on Resolution #2 so they
could identify those clergy who were not with them. The Rev. Rob
Sturdy called for the vote which angered clergy who did not want to be
forced to choose for the record between the Episcopal Church and their
Bishop.
The Rev. John Burwell, the very successful rector of Holy Cross,
Sullivan's Island, got caught in the cross-fire and voted FOR
Resolution #2, a move that almost certainly ends his nascent candidacy
for Bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina.
Bishop's strategy at the Convention is masterful but excessive rhetoric undercuts his credibility in the wider Church. If
Bishop Lawrence is hoping that his political success at today's Convention will be
interpreted the way he'd like, he hasn't helped with his excessive
rhetoric and somewhat irrational logic over the summer.
In a sermon on August 13th, the Bishop cautioned the Diocese that it was engaged in a "war."
"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.”
At another point he said, "This indiscriminant inclusivity is coming to
a neighborhood near you. If you are in TEC and resisting this
aggressive march you are already on the front lines. If you have a
stomach to engage the battle you are rightly situated. It is now a
matter of whether one is prepared to engage the challenge or not."
His comments echoed his standard
mantra that Episcopalians need to "wake
up and choose sides."
However, while the Bishop talks about doctrine, Saturday's convention
was also about his very awkward political position, and commitments has
made to different groups in the Church.
Lawrence was elected Bishop of South Carolina, largely with the support
of radical conservatives who wanted him to lead them out of the
Episcopal Church.
Subsequently Lawrence was elected with a majority of their votes, but
also with the unanimous support of traditional Episcopal parishes that
responded to his apparent openness to a Diocese with different styles
and traditions centered on the same Truth.
He was elected easily on the first ballot, but his election got into
trouble when the Episcopal Church's other 110 dioceses were asked to
consent to his election. A majority of bishops and standing committees
were needed for his consecration to go forward, but questions about his
loyalty to the Episcopal Church and his theological writings raised red
flags about his suitability as a bishop in the Church.
When it appeared his election was not going to receive the necessary
consents, Lawrence made a dramatic last-ditch effort, announcing that
the "intended to remain in the Episcopal Church."
It was too little too late and Lawrence went down. However, enough
bishops and dioceses, including the Presiding Bishop, bought it such
that the Diocese re-elected him a few months later, and he received the
necessary consents quickly the second time around.
Since then Lawrence has been trying to position the Diocese in such that he could keep his word to everyone.
With Saturday's vote he appears to have done that.
On the one hand, he has kept himself and the Diocese in the Episcopal
Church, but has moved it far enough away from the mainstream that
hot-headed secession-minded clergy have agreed to stick with him for
now.
The traditional Episcopal parishes at Saturday's convention did not
support the controversial resolutions, but their numbers were
relatively small such that they didn't make much difference in the
voting.
However, it was clear at the convention that there is significant opposition to the Bishop's policies and that it has grown.
There were significantly more clergy and lay votes against the
anti-Church tide than there has been in conventions since before 2003.
It is now clear that legally there are enough parishes that intend to
stay in the Episcopal Church to form a new Diocese, should Lawrence
reverse himself.
What do these Resolutions mean for the Diocese? Probably not much right now. Essentially the Diocese said Saturday it would not be participating
in the 2012 General Convention, and left unclear if Bishop Lawrence
would attend any more House of Bishops meetings.
The Diocese will leave open the possibility of dropping out of other
elements of Church governance in the event that they "sin" and refuse
to repent to our satisfaction.
One of those groups is the Church Pension Fund which provides "spousal" benefits to clergy in same-gender partnerships.
In practice, approval of these withdrawal tactics means very little.
Our delegations go to the General Conventions but rarely participate in
any meaningful way. They generally stick to themselves and and other
dissident groups, even when it comes to worship services. Our
delegates routinely leave before the conventions are over, and do
nothing but complain about how they hate being there.
The refusal of the Diocese to send an official delegation in 2012 does
not mean that the General Convention could not seat another one that
might present itself.
Bishop Lawrence doesn't particularly like attending meetings of the
House of Bishops, so his refusal to participate in the future may have
happened even without the delegates approval.
As far as the General Convention resolutions are concerned, they did not really break much new ground or established new
policies. Even if they did, these kinds of resolutions are not binding on our Diocese or any
others.
They are just resolutions expressing the mind of the convention. They
did not change the Constitution and Canons of the Church, the Prayer
Book, or the doctrines of the Church, though Bishop Lawrence and Canon Harmon have vehemently insisted that they did.
Essentially a GC resolution that refuses to bar individual gay people from
discerning the Will of God for their ministry affirms what has been the
case for centuries -- that Dioceses and local parishes are in charge of
who is determined to be qualified for the ordained ministry.
The
national church has never injected itself into this process in a way that would preempt the will of the Dioceses.
The General Convention simply said that it does not believe that one's sexuality,
in and of itself, should not be a barrier to entering a process of
discernment or acting on that call. That also is not new. In
1991, the House of Bishop considered such a ban but rejected it,
leaving this traditional local approach to discernment in tact.
In the Diocese of South Carolina we don't approve gay people
for ordained ministry, and the General Convention resolutions will not
affect that. When the General Convention permitted the ordination of
women, the Diocese of South Carolina resisted for many years, and even
then made life miserable for female priests when they did find there
way here.
That the Diocese on Saturday felt the need to declare these GC
resolutions "null and void" suggests that we don't get that these are
not "laws" and are not binding on us.
A second resolution at the General Convention that rankled our Diocesan
leadership was one affirming that there were monogamous same-gender
couples in the Church,
and that the General Convention did not consider them to be outside our
common life.
There has never been any policy to the contrary, so it is hard to see
how this can be considered a new thing, or cause for "war". In fact,
there is no evidence that in modern times the Church has ever
explicitly excluded any group.
Is the credibility of future ordinations on the line? One of the other resolutions approved Saturday may prove to be more of a sticking point than the delegates realized.
The final Resolve clause of Resolution #1 requires that bishops spell out for candidates for ordination in South
Carolina exactly what is meant by their commitment to adhere to “the
doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.”
The Resolution would require that the 39 Articles of Faith (not clear
what version), the Creeds (not clear which ones), and the theology of
the historic prayer books (again, not clear which parts of which
ones) be included. These are not exactly part of the Episcopal or
Anglican tradition or practice. The 39 Articles, dating back to Henry
VIII, are not required of either the Episcopal Church or the Church of
England. Neither are
all the versions of the Prayer Books.
What the Diocese is trying to do is substitute its own interpretation
of that commitment for that which is required by the Episcopal Church
and prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.
Missing from the list is “The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal
Church.” It is the theological equivalent of crossing your fingers,
and most sadly will put into play the legitimacy of any new clergy
ordained in the Diocese.
Some in the Diocese may have a problem using the
newly ordained as pawns in their war with the rest of us, but that remains to be played out.
It is also a little strange that the Diocese would accuse the Episcopal
Church of re-interpreting for its own purposes the Book of Common
Prayer, then propose as its response doing exactly the same thing.
Convention was a personal victory for Bishop Lawrence as he begins to define his episcopate. Meanwhile, Saturday's Convention was a personal victory for Bishop Lawrence. As a political strategist he may have proven himself to be somewhat
masterful. The Diocese, including the young right-wing radicals,
seems to be backing him for moment, the traditional Episcopalians are
holding their fire and , if the National Church leadership doesn't
overreact, he will have bought himself some time there as well.
In addition he has permission to skip out on General Conventions and
House of Bishops meetings he doesn't really like attending anyway.
Commentary: The Five Resolutions
During the 2006 General Convention of
the Episcopal Church, critics of the Church’s leadership proposed a
strangely worded resolution seeming to affirm well-established Church
doctrine relating to the Atonement.
The resolution was odd in that a debate
on a centuries-old theological matter, clearly defined in Anglican
tradition, was beyond the authority of a General Convention, and it
spoke to no controversy or compelling Church matter.
The Convention decided not to consider it on the grounds that the issue
was already fully addressed in the Creeds, the Book of Common Prayer,
and every other theological cornerstone of the Anglican and Episcopal
traditions.
However, passage of the resolution was not the purpose of those who had
authored it. Their reason for proposing it was so that it would NOT be
considered by the Convention.
The authors were part of the budding Anglican Communion Network,
working to build a public case against the Episcopal Church. They
needed something they could point to as evidence that it had turned its
back on God, as revealed in Jesus Christ.
Knowing that the resolution would be ruled out-of-order, the authors
had cleverly inserted in it language proclaiming The Lordship of Jesus
Christ. This, they hoped, would give them some red meat with which to
go after the current leadership of the Church.
As they anticipated, it was great propaganda.
Their bloggers couldn’t get the word out fast enough that the General
Convention had gone so far over to the dark side that it refused to
even vote on whether Jesus is Lord.
2009 Special Convention in Diocese of South Carolina is a response to this and other real and imagined outrages. On October 24th, a special, closed-door convention of the Diocese of
South Carolina convened in Mount Pleasant and approved four of five
resolutions crafted by Diocesan leaders as a theological and public
relations context for, what its Bishop calls, a “war” against those
Church leaders who have used their positions to lead the Church away
from the Bible and Jesus.
The resolutions didn't actually amend the Constitution and Canons of
the Diocese but they establish, what the Bishop calls, new rules of
"engagement" between our Diocese and the other 110 in the wider
Church.
Bishop Lawrence strongly insists that approval of the resolutions are
not tantamount to leaving the Episcopal Church, but a "protest" against
what he sees as a leftward drift in its policies.
It should have surprised no one that the subject of the first resolution was “The Lordship of Jesus Christ.”
In Resolution #1, the
Lordship issue was coupled with something called the “Sufficiency of
Scripture." Who could be against either of these essential elements
of our Faith?
Apparently no one at the Special Convention did and it was passed
swiftly. Most delegates went home thinking that they merely voted to
affirm what we already believe, and they were right.
The sneaky part of the Resolution is that it subtly affirmed a giant
theological step backwards in a way that is not readily apparent.
In 2007 Bishop Lawrence’s election symbolized a very real shift away
from the traditional Anglican character of our theology and the
diversity of spiritual expression to one narrowly focused on Biblical
literalism and a more rigid view of what is an acceptable expression of
the Christian faith.
Anglican churchmanship is historically grounded in something known in
short-hand as “the three-legged stool” of Scripture, reason, and
tradition. The balance between the three concepts has generally guided
the mainstream of Anglicanism since its inception.
However, evangelicals and Biblical literalists have chafed at the
reason and tradition parts, blaming them as the source of all sorts of
permissiveness and liberal thinking. The concept of Scripture alone,
as interpreted by themselves, has always been at the heart of their
hostility toward the mainstream.
Bishop Lawrence today appears to be part of that tradition and insists
that the Scripture leg of the stool takes precedence over the other
two. Our Diocesan leadership undoubtedly will interpret Resolution #1
as affirming of this.
However, this is small potatoes compared to the kicker in Resolution #1
that calls for the Diocese to spell out for candidates for ordination
exactly what it claims is meant by their required Oath to adhere to
“the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church."
This desire for extended clarity is not shared by the Episcopal Church,
nor is it consistent with current practice in the Church of England.
Resolution #1 lists in its proposed re-interpretation of the Oath the
39 Articles of Faith (not clear what version), the Creeds (not clear
which ones), the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and the theology of the
historic prayer books (again, not clear which parts of which ones).
While these are important cornerstones of the Episcopal and Anglican
traditions, they are not essential requirements for ordination in the
way Resolution #1 presents them. For example, the 39 Articles, dating
back to Henry VIII, are not required standards in ordinations in either
the Episcopal Church or the Church of England. Neither is a belief in
the theology expressed in all the versions of the Book of Common Prayer going back to the 16th century.
Of course, missing from the Diocese's re-interpretation of the Oath is
loyalty to “The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.” It
is the theological equivalent of crossing your fingers, and most sadly
will put into play the legitimacy of any new clergy ordained in the
Diocese.
It is somewhat ironic that the Diocese, which accuses the Episcopal
Church of re-interpreting the Book of Common Prayer for its own
purposes, then votes to do doing exactly the same thing as its response.
Psychologists will recognize the passive-aggressive nature of
Resolution #2.
This Resolution calls on the Diocesan leadership to begin to withdraw
from the governing bodies of the Episcopal Church. It also declares
"null and void" two resolutions passed by the General Convention
stating that same-gender couples are not outside the common life of the
Church and that anyone -- regardless of his or her sexuality -- is
welcome to engage in the Church-sponsored processes of discernment to
determine God's call to lay or ordained ministry.
Essentially the Diocese is picking up its marbles and withdrawing from
the governing bodies of the Episcopal Church because it hasn't gotten
its way.
The Diocese, knowing the Mind of God as it does, has pronounced
judgment on the Church and demands that it “repent”. Allegations that
the Church has acted contrary to Scripture and everything else holy, is
purely the subjective opinion of Bishop Lawrence and the angry clergy
in the Diocese who share his narrow view of Scripture.
Of course, we are in South Carolina so naturally we will invoke
Calhoun’s Theory of Nullification in response to actions of General
Convention we don’t like.
Here’s where the theory doesn’t work and makes our Diocese look like we don’t know what we are doing.
For
our
Diocese to denounce GC resolutions as “null and void” suggests we think
there is a valid issue of authority operating here. There
isn’t.
The
relationship between Dioceses and the national Church is not the same
as those of states to the Federal government. Resolutions of the
General Convention are expressions of the mind of the delegates. Yes,
there is an expectation that they will be respected. But no, they
have no force of law in any diocese.
Most importantly these resolutions do not change the Constitution and
Canons of the Church, which are binding on the Dioceses. The Diocese
of South Carolina is free to carry on as it would like.
Resolution #3 is the most dangerous for those of us who don’t always understand where the Diocese is spending its resources.
When the Diocese voted to join the Anglican Communion Network several
years ago, most delegates thought it was a good, relatively harmless
idea.
We were wrong about the harmless part. Former Bishop Salmon took that vote as permission to sink our resources,
financial and otherwise, into what turned out to be a black hole. No
one has been able to investigate how much this cost us, but some
suspect it may add up to more than $200,000. In 2007 alone, Bishop
Salmon racked up more than $90,000 in travel expenses billed to the
Diocese.
Don’t be fooled by the crocodile tears in the Resolution about
nurturing poor faithful Bible-believing Christians who are “isolated …
in other parts of the Episcopal Church.” This is permission for Bishop
Lawrence, Canon Harmon and others to focus their attention and our
resources on building up our alliances with theological allies, who
want to bring down the Episcopal Church.
This resolution gives them a huge amount of flexibility in using the
resources of this Diocese in their work all “across North America.”
Not included in this resolution is a plan for a public accounting for
any funds or resources expended by the Diocese for these activities.
The Ridley-Cambridge Draft of the currently non-existent Anglican Covenant is mentioned in Resolution #4. It is essentially one version of what might someday be a Covenant between some of the Anglican Communion provinces.
Fortunately, some people actually read the fine print.
If we look beyond the beautiful language and eloquent expressions of
Faith, we see that it is nothing more than a naked power grab by very
conservative Primates, mostly from the developing world. It would
subject us and our parishes to the rule of princes of the Church, most
of whom have never even been to South Carolina.
These Primates have one goal in mind with the Ridley-Cambridge Draft
and that is to turn the Anglican Communion into a formal membership
organization, so they can then kick the Episcopal Church out. Of
course, if they do that, they might actually have to start paying some
of the bills for the Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church is
its largest financial supporter.
The amazing thing is that we in South Carolina of all places would support something like this.
When we joined the Episcopal Church we did so after the American
Revolution and only after we were promised that we would never be
governed any bishop we did not elect ourselves. This was the central
demand of our first Bishop, Robert Smith, whose example in other
matters Bishop Lawrence seems to value.
Now he and the delegates to the Special
Convention can hardly wait to surrender our independence to bunch of
quarrelsome clerics who do little more than fly around the globe
issuing angry “communiques” and denouncing fellow Christians with whom
they do not agree.
This is the OPPOSITE of what Bishop Smith and the founders of the Diocese of South Carolina were seeking.
Finally, Resolution #5, an amended version of which was eventually tabled 182-117, expressed
some sort of love and compassion by the Diocese for gays and lesbians,
while reserving the right to call them out and condemn them whenever we
are so moved to do so.
Even the Flying Walendas would have trembled at a leap of this magnitude. The approach to homosexuals in this Diocese is that they need to marry
someone of the opposite sex, settle down, and live happily like normal
people. Otherwise, don't have sex.
Bishop Lawrence maintains there are no such things as homosexuals.
Rejecting modern scholarship, advances in research, and every medical
and psychological study on the subject since the 19th century, he
maintains that all people are sexual beings who simply make choices
about about genital activities with others. Some choices lead us
closer to God, others lead us away.
This is why he describes gays as "people who believe themselves to be
gay. lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered." His understanding of gay
people seems to be premised on the life of a gay relative who led an
unhappy life.
When the Convention took up the Resolution, the Standing Committee
attempted to revise its language to make it sound more compassionate
and less out of touch.
The Standing Committee failed to follow the rules of the Convention and
provide copies of what it was proposing to the delegates, and by the
time it did, it was clear that there would be a series of perfecting
amendments that would drag the Convention out. A motion to table was
approved, leaving the next convention in March to deal with it.
Particularly sad in this Diocese is the fact that we have actually
sponsored some conversation therapy programs consistent with Bishop
Lawrence's understanding of human sexuality and achieved disastrous
results for the participants.
