Question

[mark46]

You need to believe those from South Carolina on this one. Bishop Lawrence addressed most of the parishes personally, within a week or so of the convention. The STATED reason for declaring that we were no longer part of TEC was the canons passed with regard to the acceptance of homosexuals and transgender leaders in the Church. Make no mistake; Bishop Lawrence CHOSE to leave. He fought the Church for many, many years. He agonized over the decision. But it is a decision that he made. Those are HIS words, HIS analysis, not mine.

The decision by TEC to "get rid of Lawrence" was no more than a validation of Bishop Lawrence's own declaration (several times) that he was no longer an Episcopalian. After all, the effort a year earlier to kick him out had failed to pass.

I suggest that you review the timeline a bit more.
=============

And yes, I certainly agree that TEC did not treat Bishop Lawrence well. Why would they? He openly attacked the decisions made by the national church. Bishop Lawrence was tolerated until he walked out of the convention, came home and took the diocese out of the TEC and announced to each of the congregations that they were no long part of TEC or the Anglican Communion.

Let us discuss TEC recognizing a "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" diocese. This was done AFTER Bishop Lawrence left and took the entire diocese out of TEC. What was the national church to do? Should they have decided that those who wanted to remain could no longer be part of a TEC diocese. That certainly wasn't done when you all left in the 70's or when ACNA folks left. TEC has a responsibility to give ecclesial leadership to all it member churches by allowing them to be part of a TEC diocese.
======================

For a second, let us put the heretics aside. They should have been reprimanded and kicked out years ago, before splitting the church on issues of gender.

Aside from the Church continuing to ignore the heretics within, it seems that issues that have divided the Church are relatively minor. The Church has been split on the definition of the two minor sacraments of marriage and holy orders, and whether such definitions can change over time.

For me, it would have made much more sense to split because that national Church refused to reprimand the heretics. This seems to make much more sense than splitting because we cannot accept a priesthood that includes women and homosexuals.
===================

In the end, many here agree with the positions of Bishop Lawrence rather than the positions of the PB on gender issues. That's fine. Would you be so supportive of the rebels if the national Church insisted on a male priesthood and considered homosexuality an abomination and the rebels split because they
wanted to allow the priesthood to include women and homosexuals.

For me, it is not the two issues which is central to the discussion. What is central is that rebels simply left the Church when they disagreed about gender issues. For me, this is not what Anglicanism is all about.

While we've agreed on much lately, I think the above is not entirely correct. In the South Carolina situation, it is simply not the case that the split was solely over the homosexuality issue. The diocese did not leave TEC in protest of gay clergy, etc. It was more about the Presiding Bishop acting against her own church's canon law to hold a kangaroo court in order to have it rubber stamp her decision to get rid of Bishop Lawrence and then recognize a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] diocese--again in violation of her own church's canons. Regardless of which side any Episcopalian stands on with regard to the homosexual issues, I would think there would be alarm at such ecclesiastical hijinks. But there doesn't appear to be much.

 

[Albion]

You need to believe those from South Carolina on this one.

I did give that careful consideration, but I also know that your mind was made up about your bishop BEFORE the stuff hit the fan. That also had to be considered.

Bishop Bishop Lawrence addressed most of the parishes personally, within a week or so of the convention. The STATED reason for declaring that we were no longer part of TEC was the canons passed with regard to the acceptance of homosexuals and transgender leaders in the Church. Make no mistake; Bishop Lawrence CHOSE to leave. He fought the Church for many, many years. He agonized over the decision. But it is a decision that he made. Those are HIS words, HIS analysis, not mine.

The facts as reported in the religious press are quite the opposite of that. I cannot deny that he might have been planning an exit--or that he opposed the national church's decision on homosexuality--but he did not do so. The Presiding Bishop pre-empted all of that on the claim that he had, in effect, tipped his hand. Even if that were the case, the PB cannot boot a sitting bishop for what she suspects he will do.

I suggest that you review the timeline a bit more.

Fair enough, but I'd need additional evidence.

And yes, I certainly agree that TEC did not treat Bishop Lawrence well. Why would they? He openly attacked the decisions made by the national church.

You're undermining your own argument now. Talk is cheap, and the canons do not allow for any bishop to be expelled from the church for criticizing the decisions of General Convention, etc.

Let us discuss TEC recognizing a "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" diocese. This was done AFTER Bishop Lawrence left and took the entire diocese out of TEC. What was the national church to do?

Oh, please. I have no respect for the "what was X to do" argument, no matter where or when it's used. The question is not that but what do the canons provide? You cannot seriously say that the PB is a dictator and whatever she thinks is a good way to act is without any limitations.

Should they have decided that those who wanted to remain could no longer be part of a TEC diocese.

Just quote the relevant parts of the canons to me, Mark.

For a second, let us put the heretics aside. They should have been reprimanded and kicked out years ago, before splitting the church on issues of gender.

In the end, many here agree with the positions of Bishop Lawrence rather than the positions of the PB on gender issues. That's fine. Would you be so supportive of the rebels if the national Church insisted on a male priesthood and considered homosexuality an abomination and the rebels split because they
wanted to allow the priesthood to include women and homosexuals.

Hard to say, but in the Bp. Lawrence case, I cannot respect the way that the PB has run roughshod over the rules of her church in order to have her own way with a dissident she did not even deign to meet with before springing her version of the "Saturday Night Massacre." You know that she did everything she could to interfere with him getting the requisite consents before he became the bishop, so the idea that her hand was somehow forced later on when she told him he was removed from office just doesn't hold up.

What is central is that rebels simply left the Church when they disagreed about gender issues. For me, this is not what Anglicanism is all about.

That's too simplistic, if you ask me. All organizations have rules and regulations and when they are not followed, are deliberately ignored, is it the fault of those who were willing to abide by them? All these "rebels" from the Reformed Episcopal Church in the 1870s down to ACNA had the Episcopal Church's canons and constitution on THEIR side but were forced out of the church by those who had the power and wouldn't live by the rules.

 

[FireDragon76]

the SSB's are not necessarily about "blessing sex outside of marriage".

Bishop Lawrence couldn't live with the canons of the Episcopal Church that affirm the dignity of transgender individuals and prohibit discrimination against them. He's a bigot that isn't interested in their painful life stories or the compiled scientific evidence regarding gender and sexuality. So good riddance

 

[Albion]

the SSB's are not necessarily about "blessing sex outside of marriage".

Don't leave us in suspense. What, then, are they about--blessing the bonds of trust and faithfulness between people who are open about having sex outside of marriage?

 

[FireDragon76]

Don't leave us in suspense. What, then, are they about--blessing the bonds of trust and faithfulness between people who are open about having sex outside of marriage?

Yes, in some cases. Some of those relationships could be celibate for all you know.

 

[Albion]

the SSB's are not necessarily about "blessing sex outside of marriage".

Unless you have some other reason in mind, I'm left to think that they are indeed what they purport to be all about.

Bishop Lawrence couldn't live with the canons of the Episcopal Church that affirm the dignity of transgender individuals and prohibit discrimination against them. He's a bigot

Then that would fall under the "No one with any opinions may be an Episcopalian" Canon.

Most people don't realize that Episcopalians never ever disagree with each other on matters of doctrine or morality and are forbidden to do so.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I suspect that eventually they will try to do something very similar to what happened with women's ordination. Initially touted as something parishes could decide upon, eventually the fact that some do it will be used to argue that it is now normative and ok for Anglicans. And therefor those that do not use it are either somehow not Anglican, or are homophobes, or are perceived as a bunch of people who need to be brought along gently.

Indeed, it's called progressivism.

Things are not as hunky dory as TEC leadership would like us to believe in regards to these matters.

Understatement of the century.

 

[MKJ]

While we've agreed on much lately, I think the above is not entirely correct. In the South Carolina situation, it is simply not the case that the split was solely over the homosexuality issue. The diocese did not leave TEC in protest of gay clergy, etc. It was more about the Presiding Bishop acting against her own church's canon law to hold a kangaroo court in order to have it rubber stamp her decision to get rid of Bishop Lawrence and then recognize a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] diocese--again in violation of her own church's canons. Regardless of which side any Episcopalian stands on with regard to the homosexual issues, I would think there would be alarm at such ecclesiastical hijinks. But there doesn't appear to be much.

I have noticed this in politics as well. People do not seem to get all that upset about this kind of procedural stuff, even though in many cases it is much more significant that the really visible controversial stuff. Things like changing the way the PMO takes questions from the press, use of the rules of Parliment, or stopping government scientists and even MPs from talking to the press... People do not seem to care much about this kind of thing.

I understand. Something's very wrong.

I think for a lot of people, they may have hoped things might reverse direction, or they hoped to be able to influence things by holding out in a parish that was orthodox, or they were in a parish where what happened nationally did not really touch them. At some point, something happened to convince them things would not turn around, or changes came to their own parishes that they could not avoid. I think this is especially true of people who were unhappy with TEC but who wanted to remain in the AC - a very difficult situation to negotiate.

 

[mark46]

The history is all on the various diocesan websites. There is no question but that Bishop Lawrence pulled the diocese out of TEC before the PB formally kicked him out. He also declared to each parish that we were no longer Episcopalians or part of the Anglican Communion.

BTW, Lawrence had no problem with a new TEC diocese. The only issue was the use of the name and seal. This remains sn issue.

I simply don't understand your position. Bishop Lawrence had a formal vote of the diocese to leave TEC and the Anglican Communion. Bishop Lawrence does not claim to be a member of either. Last week he attend the ACNA conference, as a guest, as he explores options moving forward. I see no reason why TEC and South Carolina Episcopalians should not move on.

BTW, I don't pay attention to every legal step in this petty squabble. I too need to move on.

I did give that careful consideration, but I also know that your mind was made up about your bishop BEFORE the stuff hit the fan. That also had to be considered.


The facts as reported in the religious press are quite the opposite of that. I cannot deny that he might have been planning an exit--or that he opposed the national church's decision on homosexuality--but he did not do so. The Presiding Bishop pre-empted all of that on the claim that he had, in effect, tipped his hand. Even if that were the case, the PB cannot boot a sitting bishop for what she suspects he will do.


Fair enough, but I'd need additional evidence.


You're undermining your own argument now. Talk is cheap, and the canons do not allow for any bishop to be expelled from the church for criticizing the decisions of General Convention, etc.


Oh, please. I have no respect for the "what was X to do" argument, no matter where or when it's used. The question is not that but what do the canons provide? You cannot seriously say that the PB is a dictator and whatever she thinks is a good way to act is without any limitations.



Just quote the relevant parts of the canons to me, Mark.

For a second, let us put the heretics aside. They should have been reprimanded and kicked out years ago, before splitting the church on issues of gender.


Hard to say, but in the Bp. Lawrence case, I cannot respect the way that the PB has run roughshod over the rules of her church in order to have her own way with a dissident she did not even deign to meet with before springing her version of the "Saturday Night Massacre." You know that she did everything she could to interfere with him getting the requisite consents before he became the bishop, so the idea that her hand was somehow forced later on when she told him he was removed from office just doesn't hold up.


That's too simplistic, if you ask me. All organizations have rules and regulations and when they are not followed, are deliberately ignored, is it the fault of those who were willing to abide by them? All these "rebels" from the Reformed Episcopal Church in the 1870s down to ACNA had the Episcopal Church's canons and constitution on THEIR side but were forced out of the church by those who had the power and wouldn't live by the rules.

 

[Albion]

I have noticed this in politics as well. People do not seem to get all that upset about this kind of procedural stuff, even though in many cases it is much more significant that the really visible controversial stuff. Things like changing the way the PMO takes questions from the press, use of the rules of Parliment, or stopping government scientists and even MPs from talking to the press... People do not seem to care much about this kind of thing.

I think for a lot of people, they may have hoped things might reverse direction, or they hoped to be able to influence things by holding out in a parish that was orthodox, or they were in a parish where what happened nationally did not really touch them. At some point, something happened to convince them things would not turn around, or changes came to their own parishes that they could not avoid. I think this is especially true of people who were unhappy with TEC but who wanted to remain in the AC - a very difficult situation to negotiate.

At bottom, whether the visible church operates according to its own rules should be of first importance to everyone, and I don;'t understand, frankly, when anyone on any side acts like it's not. Shouldn't any church at least have integrity, whatever its doctrines may be?

 

[Albion]

The history is all on the various diocesan websites. There is no question but that Bishop Lawrence pulled the diocese out of TEC before the PB formally kicked him out. He also declared to each parish that we were no longer Episcopalians or part of the Anglican Communion.

What I can say is that I've drawn my information from such sites and it was what I posted here.

BTW, Lawrence had no problem with a new TEC diocese. The only issue was the use of the name and seal. This remains sn issue.

What does "had no problem with a new TEC diocese" have to do with anything? The PB has absolutely no ability, right, or permission to erect such a thing, regardless of name. That is what I was talking about when questioning why those who have sided against Bp. Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina find the rules to be suddenly unimportant while simultaneously trying to say that Bp. Lawrence was deserving of what he got...because he supposedly broke some of those rules.

I simply don't understand your position. Bishop Lawrence had a formal vote of the diocese to leave TEC and the Anglican Communion. Bishop Lawrence does not claim to be a member of either. Last week he attend the ACNA conference, as a guest, as he explores options moving forward. I see no reason why TEC and South Carolina Episcopalians should not move on.

But this is all "after the fact," Mark. It doesn't shed any light at all on who is right and who is not right in the matter of the separation. Anyone of us who had been summarily expelled, wrongly, from our church would most likely accept invitations to visit with other churches or make some fall-back decisions AFTER the separation.

I don't pay attention to every legal step in this petty squabble. I too need to move on.

Well, it matters to many people, so either you will help us here who are part of that group by providing specifics or else some of us are going to continue to conclude that TEC wronged the bishop rather than the other way around.

 

[MKJ]

At bottom, whether the visible church operates according to its own rules should be of first importance to everyone, and I don;'t understand, frankly, when anyone on any side acts like it's not. Shouldn't any church at least have integrity, whatever its doctrines may be?

Well, in politics I think a major part of it is that many do not really understand the political system in any detail. And sometimes it is hard for people to know what is going on with things like that, as it tends not to make for exciting news. there may be similar issues in church politics.

I do not think it is unreasonable for people to be slow to make decisions to abandon the ecclesiastical body they belong to in such instances. Often things in the church look quite different in the long term than they do in the short term, and hasty decisions, which are perhaps what got the AC into its mess in the first place, do not pay off. In the end, people have to decide when they think things will not improve, or that they just cannot worship in the environment they are in with good faith.

 

[mark46]

1) I strongly disagree with the position that TEC has no right to form a diocese anywhere where the is no existing TEC diocese. Should TEC really be the only Anglican group not to have a bishop in coastal South Carolina? The organizations of the other six bishops protest a bit too much I think.

2) I understand that the PB "wronged" Bishop Lawrence in many ways. Some think it's fine to break away from the TEC and the Communion when one disagrees with a particular canon or two. Do you disagree on the stated reasons for the diocesan vote on disaffiliation? Bishop Lawrence (and the diocese) didn't like a lot of the actions of the national leadership. However, the reason for disaffiliation (and the walkout) was the two new canons.

3) Bishop Lawrence indicated to us that he struggled with his decision with regard to how to deal with his disagreement with the new canons on non-discrimination against active homosexual or transgender clergy or staff. He said one of the options was for him to simply indicate that he could not enforce these new canons and resign as bishop of TEC (and move back to California). Bishop Lawrence certainly knew the repercussions of his actions. When one disaffiliates the diocese from the AC and TEC, there will be consequences. He made this clear when he declared to one congregation after another that he, and we, were no longer Episcopalians.
Is it that you simply don't believe Bishop Lawrence?

4) In the end, I think one needs to decide whether the Roman philosophy is correct: "where the bishop is, the Church is". This would mean a relatively weak PB/primate. Under this view, the national Church should allow almost any theological opinion by individual bishops short the heresy preached by Spong and others. In this case, there would be NO national policy/canon regarding women's ordination, homosexual marriage, divorce or abortion. Perhaps this situation would be much better, perhaps not. As I have indicated, the situation could have been reversed with a theologically conservative TEC and liberal bishops who unilaterally ordained women and homosexuals. I think that most would then want the national Church to act against the bishops who acted in this way.

5) Finally, let me note that Bishop Lawrence had an alternative not taken, as he also pointed out. He could have simply gone forward as before the canons were past. After all, we have no women priests that I know of in Coastal South Carolina. We have no actively homosexual priests. Our church property belongs to the congregations in South Carolina.

Clearly the PB and the national Church egged on Bishop Lawrence for years and he finally decided to leave, just as the PB has wanted for years. But make no mistake, the action was based on the careful, deliberate, prayerful decision of Bishop Lawrence.

What I can say is that I've drawn my information from such sites and it was what I posted here.


What does "had no problem with a new TEC diocese" have to do with anything? The PB has absolutely no ability, right, or permission to erect such a thing, regardless of name. That is what I was talking about when questioning why those who have sided against Bp. Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina find the rules to be suddenly unimportant while simultaneously trying to say that Bp. Lawrence was deserving of what he got...because he supposedly broke some of those rules.


But this is all "after the fact," Mark. It doesn't shed any light at all on who is right and who is not right in the matter of the separation. Anyone of us who had been summarily expelled, wrongly, from our church would most likely accept invitations to visit with other churches or make some fall-back decisions AFTER the separation.


Well, it matters to many people, so either you will help us here who are part of that group by providing specifics or else some of us are going to continue to conclude that TEC wronged the bishop rather than the other way around.

 

[Albion]

1) I strongly disagree with the position that TEC had no right to form a diocese anywhere where the is no existing TEC diocese. Should TEC really be the only Anglican group not to have a bishop in coastal South Carolina?

Once again, I'm only sympathizing with those who think the church should adhere to its own canons. They do not allow for the PB setting up a diocese with a few parishes and IMMEDIATELY being considered a constitutent diocese in TEC.

2) I understand that the PB "wronged" Bishop Lawrence in many ways. Some think it's fine to break away from the TEC and the Communion when one disagrees with a particular canon or two. Do you disagree on the stated reasons for the diocesan vote on disaffiliation?

I think that "it's fine to break away from the TEC" is factually incorrect, so the rest of your question can't be answered.

3) Bishop Lawrence indicated to us that he struggled with his decision with regard to how to deal with his disagreement with the new canons on non-discrimination against active homosexual or transgender clergy or staff. He said one of the options was for him to simply indicate that he could not enforce these new canons and resign as bishop of TEC (and move back to California).

There's no declaration of withdrawal from TEC in that.

Bishop Lawrence certainly knew the repercussions of his actions.

Once again, rules are rules. And no, I don't think we can say that he knew that the Presiding Bishop would act in violation of the canons. Perhaps he should have expected as much from her, but I do not agree with you that if you know that someone is going to wrong you, you are at fault for their actions while they are to be held blameless.

If there are facts that haven't presented yet, this would be the time.

 

[Albion]

Well, in politics I think a major part of it is that many do not really understand the political system in any detail.

That's for sure.

there may be similar issues in church politics.

I do not think it is unreasonable for people to be slow to make decisions to abandon the ecclesiastical body they belong to in such instances. Often things in the church look quite different in the long term than they do in the short term, and hasty decisions, which are perhaps what got the AC into its mess in the first place, do not pay off.

Yes, I appreciate that, but only to a point. For many people, what you describe ultimately becomes "head in sand, please don't tell me any more."

but In the end, people have to decide when they think things will not improve, or that they just cannot worship in the environment they are in with good faith.

Yes, and I strongly feel that it's the faith that is our first concern, not the institutional church body. Many times here we are reading the ecclesiastical equivalent of "my country, right or wrong."

 

[ebia]

. They do not allow for the PB setting up a diocese with a few parishes and IMMEDIATELY being considered a constitutent diocese in TEC.

Why ever not?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Under this view, the national Church should allow almost any theological opinion by individual bishops short the heresy preached by Spong and others.

Has Spong ever been successfully disciplined for his preaching?

 

[FireDragon76]

Has Spong ever been successfully disciplined for his preaching?

I think it's been discussed but never happened.

Spong's attitude is alot more pernicious than the substance of his preaching, so it's harder to pin him down as any more heretical than a dozen other bishops The substance of his rhetoric is sometimes not that different from mysticism (it seems more likely he's aiming for an apophatic theology than genuine atheism, but isn't educated enough to understand that, Anglicanism in general now days seems to have a low view of mysticism in favor of conservative or liberal literalism), but the manner he goes about engaging with traditionalists is sub-Christian, and in many ways, un-Anglican, especially in its stridency.

 

[rhartsc]

I am wondering if the recent Supreme Court rulings mean anything in this debate about SSM. It would seem that SSM will be legal throughout the US (though that will take some more time, litigation etc) and there appears to be other countries joining the list all the Time (just read an article that says it will very likely pass in Scotland). So can we deny the rite of marriage to those that are legally married by the state without causing even more problems? And what would be the justification?

 

[Albion]

I am wondering if the recent Supreme Court rulings mean anything in this debate about SSM. It would seem that SSM will be legal throughout the US (though that will take some more time, litigation etc) and there appears to be other countries joining the list all the Time (just read an article that says it will very likely pass in Scotland).

I'd be cautious about that conclusion. There are areas that are seeing the advance of homosexual relationships as a threat to their social order and so are reacting against it. Also, although there are more states and nations that will probably legalize it in the near future, there are also those that are unlikely to do so. IOW, some growth can be expected, but not a clean sweep by any means.

So can we deny the rite of marriage to those that are legally married by the state without causing even more problems?

Not in TEC. It is too committed already to stop at anything short of what the gay lobby wants.

But in other churches, sure. What the government decrees is not in any way what the church is obligated to consider moral. Historically, the churches have often opposed government policy, so this wouldn't be any different.