A Response to Bishop Lawrence's Remarks to the Clergy of South Carolina

Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, one of the most stalwart orthodox bishops left inside TEC, has addressed his clergy and called for a special convention to discuss responses to GenCon 09. His remarks may be found here. Please read them all carefully. They are important, though not nearly as strong as I would have hoped.

I freely admit that this is a powerful statement from a faithful shepherd. He is a good and godly man, trying his best to serve God and his people. I certainly mean no disrespect to the worthy bishop by what follows here, but I just don’t see any proposal in these remarks to take much more than a few symbolic protest actions. As a “strongly worded letter of protest” at what TEC has been up to, the bishop's remarks are superb. But we have seen many such fine protest letters defending the true Faith over the last six years, haven’t we? What concrete actions does the bishop of South Carolina envision? What is DioSC actually going to do differently now that GenCon 09 has made the course of TEC clear? I see five things in these remarks:

1. Action will soon be taken to clarify that ordinands in South Carolina won’t be taking oaths to support recent, illegitimate actions by TEC when they are ordained. This is a good thing as a symbol, but of little practical importance as far as I can see.

2. DioSC will apparently be taking steps to formally endorse the Ridley draft of the Covenant individually, and we all know national TEC will not ever do so. This diocesan endorsement of the Covenant may one day have some significance if ABC Williams’ prediction of “two tracks” in the world-wide Communion ever comes to pass. But in practical terms such an endorsement by DioSC will matter little for years to come, if ever. This looks to me like just another symbolic action, at least until TEC definitively rejects the Covenant. (Will that final rejection come six years from now at GenCon 2015? You know TEC will stall as long as possible in making a final decision that might result in consequences from Lambeth Palace.).

3. There are calls here for DioSC to offer support to orthodox parishes elsewhere within TEC. The bishop mentions increased engagement by parishes and the laity in this effort. I am not clear exactly what this increased engagement in non-DioSC orthodox parishes still inside TEC would entail. DEPO has been around a long time, so surely +Lawrence means more than that. Time will tell how this can be lived out. I hope it is of great help to the orthodox in TEC around the nation.

4. There are signs the bishop hopes for increased engagement with GAFCON and ACNA. That’s a good thing. What precisely that would mean, I don’t know. If it means dropping certain lawsuits, that would really miff PB Schori, and that would surely be a good thing!

5. Finally, there is the most important proposed action in the text: “The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions. Let no one think this is a denial of the vows a priest or bishop makes to participate in the councils of governance.”

Yet as Anglican Curmudgeon points out, this is not a call to formally terminate membership in any ecclesial body, even General Convention. Rather, it appears to mean only not sending representatives to meetings in order to “participate in the councils of governance.” Unfortunately, it seems that DioSC doesn’t presently have any reps on any national committees of TEC, so they may have no one to “pull” from TEC governance meetings to effectuate this “withdrawal” other than Bishop Lawrence himself. In practical terms in the next few years this would mean little more than +Lawrence boycotting House of Bishops meetings and DioSC not sending any representatives to take part at GenCon 2012 (though Dr. Seitz of the ACI seems to be saying they should send ‘observers’ to GenCon 2012).

So, for all practical purposes we will notice little more different with regard to DioSC during the next few years than the following: a few symbolic steps to “differentiate” themselves more from national TEC (ordinands will formally be told that they are not swearing to uphold illegitimate actions of GenCon and DioSC will sign the Covenant individually), there may be increased, as-yet undefined links between DioSC and orthodox TEC parishes elsewhere and with GAFCON/ACNA, and Bishop Lawrence may boycott House of Bishops meetings. (I should note here that Bishop Iker didn’t attend HoB meetings for years before we left TEC last fall. No one seemed to think that was a particularly bold move at the time.)

Have I left anything important off this list?

Perhaps these moves aren’t exactly "timid" but they surely are not the bold action I was hoping for from the worthy Bishop Lawrence. This very cautious approach may be exactly what the good people of DioSC want to happen. But does the “third way” some are looking for between a.) endorsing TEC's present trajectory into folly and heresy, and b.) departing TEC for ACNA, amount to anything more than I have just summarized? As far as I can tell this “third way” constitutes little more than tending faithfully to church local affairs while taking a few symbolic actions to "differentiate" from national TEC a bit more and ignoring 815 as much as possible.

Sadly absolutely nothing proposed in this new "middle way" will save DioSC in the long run. One day the worthy Bishop Lawrence will leave the scene and they will have to elect a new bishop. And as long as they remain under the Constitutions and Canons of TEC their new-bishop elect, whoever he is, will have to receive consents from a majority of the heretical leadership of TEC in order to be consecrated. Any plan DioSC adopts now that does not rapidly move toward departure from TEC will eventually spell their doom. I hope they have the wisdom to see that.

Endorsing the Anglican Covenant at the Diocesan Level is Purely Symbolic, ABC Williams Indicates

After the last TEC GenCon the leadership of the few remaining "orthodox" dioceses within TEC (e.g., South Carolina) started talking about ways of "differentiating" themselves further from the national trends of TEC. In almost every case that differentiation was either completely symbolic (e.g., adoption of a formal statement clarifying the meanings of a word or two in the ordination vows taken by ordinands in that diocese) or the proposals were so vague as to amount to little at present (e.g., increase "co-operation" with Anglicans outside of TEC, etc.). [I have previously reflected on Bishop Lawrence's proposals here.]

Only one thing these orthodox TEC leaders suggested even had a hope of one day truly meaning something "on the ground"--a diocesan-level endorsement of the proposed Anglican Covenant,which national TEC will surely ultimately reject if it has any "teeth" at all. Perhaps ten years from now that kind of diocesan action might actually matter in some way, I thought. Just possibly the Covenant's adoption by South Carolina and other "orthodox" TEC entities might help them to remain part of orthodox Anglicanism world-wide, I hoped.

But now the Archbishop of Canterbury himself has indicated even such a diocesan endorsement of the Covenant is purely symbolic and will have no "official" meaning. Read this article from the Living Church.

Please, folks still trapped in the these handful of dioceses, it is time to admit the facts. Nothing you can do at the diocesan level will ever make you meaningfully different from the rest of TEC as long as you remain members of the national body. Your bishops are still ultimately answerable to PB Schori. You are still subject to TEC's constitution and canons and to it's disciplinary procedures. And most importantly, the heretical majority of TEC's bishops and standing committees will have an absolute veto over whomever your elect to be your next bishop.

Your staunch defense of orthodoxy could evaporate rapidly if your bishop unexpectedly leaves office. The powers that be will insure that your next bishop is "reasonable" and "moderate"--one of those respectable "conservatives" who politely states his traditionalist positions at church meetings and then faithfully implements whatever the decision of the TEC governing body in question are without further cavil. Once such a "reasonable" bishop is in place a majority of your parish clergy will be cut from the same cloth in less than a decade. By 2025 most of the people still left in the once "orthodox" dioceses of TEC will hardly remember what all this fuss was about.

More purely symbolic declarations are pointless at this juncture. Either act to separate from TEC now or come to terms with where your denomination is inevitably heading. Further resistance inside TEC is futile. The TEC ship has left the shore of traditional Christianity and is rapidly sailing away into the brave, new sunset of radical inclusion. Loudly proclaiming that you are not part of the vessel's journey while you still stand on it's deck watching the shoreline recede is simply a denial of reality. It is time to adjust to your new situation either by making peace with the Good Ship TEC's captain and crew or by jumping ship while you still might make it back home!

Grave News With Regard To TEC's Future

News has just been published on the Net that Fr. Mark Lawrence, the bishop-elect of South Carolina, has been rejected by the national Episcopal church, having failed to receive a sufficient number of consents from diocesan Standing Committees around the denomination in proper form.

For anyone who still believed that there was a realistic hope some way might be found for the orthodox to stay within TEC, this is terrible news. Father Lawrence's only "offense" was his outspoken criticism of the extreme leftward trend of TEC. In the last few weeks he had made it abundantly clear that he was not going to act precipitously to take the diocese of South Carolina out of TEC, but rather he would support the Primatial Vicar process outlined in the Primates' recent Communique. There was no reason at all for standing committees to vote against his confirmation other than his orthodox theological convictions. Certainly his "manner of life" posed no challenge to the standards of the world-wide Communion!

Following this catastrophe there can be no hope at all that traditional Anglican dioceses, be they predominantly Anglo-Catholic in focus like Fort Worth or Quincy or Evangelical in orientation like Pittsburgh or South Carolina, could possibly seat a faithful successor to their incumbent bishops. The powers that be in TEC will never again allow a solidly orthodox candidate to be consecrated if he has ever even hinted that the orthodox might need to seek "realignment" in the future.

The Episcopal Left has flexed its muscle in a serious way in torpedoing Fr. Lawrence's consecration. I hope the world-wide Anglican Primates are watching closely.

I wonder if Fr. Lawrence would allow himself to be elected by South Carolina again.