Bishop Mark Lawrence’s Letter to the Diocese of S.C. to be read in all parishes Sunday morning

Posted by Kendall Harmon

[This post was originally'made 'sticky' at the head of the blog list of posts - with new posts below it - for a good while during the summer of 2012 (see also index)]
July 15, 2012
7th Sunday After Pentecost

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Some of you have actively followed the decisions of the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Others have been blissfully unaware that our denomination even had a General Convention. We have. And the actions taken mark a significant and distressing departure from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.

In conversations with clergy, and from the emails I have received, I know there is much uneasiness about the future....

Some of us are experiencing the well-known stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. And, of course, I must acknowledge there are those for whom the recent decisions are a cause for celebration. For me there are certainly things about which I was thankful at the convention in Indianapolis. I might even have taken encouragement from the resolutions that were passed regarding needed structural reform, and for the intentional work in the House of Bishops on matters of collegiality and honesty. Unfortunately, these strike me now as akin to a long overdue rearranging of the furniture when the house is on fire. Why do I say this?

There are four resolutions which were adopted that bring distressing changes to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church that every ordained person in this church has vowed “to engage to conform,” and which stand in direct conflict with the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them.

First, let me mention resolution C029. While this was amended during the debates in a more temperate direction, it still moves the Church further down the road toward encouraging the communion of the unbaptized which departs from two thousand years of Christian practice. It also puts the undiscerning person in spiritual jeopardy. (I Corinthians 11:27--32)

Plainly, the resolution that has received the most publicity is A049 which authorizes rites for Same-Sex Blessings. This resolution goes into effect in Advent 2012, but only upon the authority of the bishop of each diocese. It hardly needs to be said, but for the record let me say clearly, I will not authorize the use of such rites in the Diocese of South Carolina. Such rites are not only contrary to the canons of this diocese and to the judgment of your bishop, but more importantly I believe they are contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture; to two thousand years of Christian practice; as well as to our created nature. Many theologians down through the centuries speak of what we are as human beings by Creation; what we are by the Fall; what we are through Redemption (that is in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ); and what we shall be in our Glorification. Our marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer is rooted in this understanding. Because of this, it is biblical, it is Christian, and it is Anglican. I would also add, it is beautiful and it is true. Therefore the Episcopal Church has no authority to put asunder this sacramental understanding of marriage as established by God in creation and blessed through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It has no authority to do this either by revising the marriage rite to include same sex partners or by devising some parallel quasi-marital sacramental service. I remind you of the elegant words of our Prayer Book which echo the teaching of our Scriptures:

“The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. It signifies the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people.”
This speaks of a “given-ness” in this age that is good, and is emblematic of our Christian Hope. It prepares us for the age to come; when God the Father summons his Church to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

There is however an even more incoherent departure from the teaching of Holy Scripture and from our Episcopalian and Anglican Heritage to be found in the General Convention’s passage of resolutions D002 and D019. These changes to our Church’s canons mark an even further step into incoherency. They open the door to innumerable self-understandings of gender identity and gender expression within the Church; normalizing “transgender,” “bi-sexual,” “questioning,” and still yet to be named – self-understandings of individualized eros. I fail to see how a rector or parish leader who embraces such a canonical change has any authority to discipline a youth minister, Sunday school teacher, or chalice bearer who chooses to dress as a man one Sunday and as a woman another. And this is but one among many possibilities. Let me state my concern clearly. To embrace an understanding of our human condition in which gender may be entirely self-defined, self-chosen is to abandon all such norms, condemning ourselves, our children and grandchildren, as well as future generations to sheer sexual anarchy. So long as I am bishop of this diocese I will not abandon its people to such darkness.

Some have said to me, “But bishop the culture is accepting this. To continue to resist these innovations is to put ourselves on the wrong side of history.” I say to such thinking, you cannot be on the wrong side of History if you are on the right side of Reality. Archbishop William Temple was correct when he wrote over 70 years ago: the Church needs to be very clear in its public teaching so it can be very pastoral in its application.

This Monday afternoon I will be meeting with my Council of Advice. On Tuesday I will be meeting with our Diocesan Standing Committee. Then during the remainder of July I will be meeting with the deans and with clergy in various deaneries. Given these changes in the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church the question that is before us is: “What does being faithful to Jesus Christ look like for this diocese at this time? How are we called to live and be and act? In this present context, how do we make Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age?”

On the penultimate day of General Convention, in a Private Session in the House of Bishops, I asked for a point of personal privilege and expressed my heartfelt concerns about these changes. I listened to the words of others and then departed with prayer and charity. I left at that time because at least for me to pretend that nothing had changed was no longer an option. Now that I have returned to South Carolina it is still not an option. I ask that you keep me and the councils of our diocese in your prayers as you shall be in mine. We have many God-size challenges and, I trust, many God-given opportunities ahead.

Faithfully yours in Christ,

--(The Rt. Rev.) Mark Lawrence is Bishop of South Carolina

(Please note that if you wish to see a signed copy of this letter, you may find it there)--KSH.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)General Convention --Gen. Con. 2012TEC BishopsTEC Polity & CanonsSexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)Same-sex blessings* Christian Life / Church LifeParish Ministry* TheologyAnthropologyEcclesiologyEthics / Moral TheologyPastoral TheologyTheology: Scripture

48 Comments
Posted July 15, 2012 at 2:59 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Luke wrote:

See the Anglican Curmudgeon’s (A. S. Haley) analysis of how this might be treated by ECUSA and its leadership here:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/07/bishop-lawrence-addresses-his-diocese.html

Thanks it was already in the queue for posting today—ed..

July 15, 5:16 am | [comment link]
2. Jill Woodliff wrote:

Prayer.

July 15, 8:36 am | [comment link]
3. SC blu cat lady wrote:

I like the Curmudgeon’s analysis as always. I suspect Barbara Mann and the other members of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina are celebrating today and then .....  who knows what will happen next? I just hope the diocese has the time to make a prayerful decision that reflects as many people in the diocese as possible.

July 15, 8:53 am | [comment link]
4. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

Is not Communion part of worship? So, am I right in reading D019 that I could not as a priest theoretically deny Communion to someone based on “...marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or and expression…”?

I ask this in all seriousness because the wording of the Resolution says, “No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church…” Would denying Communion to someone on the above basis in fact deny “access to worship”?

Title I, Canon 17 is not about the ordination process. The title of Canon 17 of Title I is “Of Regulations Respecting the Laity” The subheading of at least the 2009 version of the canons says Title I, Canon 17, Section 5 are the “rights of the laity.” Title I, Canon 17, Section 6 immediately going into “Refusal of Holy Communion” which begs that question.

I find that disturbing.

July 15, 9:02 am | [comment link]
5. David Hein wrote:

“the Episcopal Church has no authority to put asunder this sacramental understanding”

Does Bishop Lawrence mean, rather, “to put aside”?

July 15, 11:24 am | [comment link]
6. Ralph wrote:

#4, an interesting question. Would you propose to deny communion because of someone’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity, or because he/she/he-she is in a sexual relationship outside of Christian marriage?

July 15, 1:35 pm | [comment link]
7. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

Well, no, it would be how they acted upon it, but the rewording of the passed resolution is clearly “gender identity or and expression.” Living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage is an expression of that, so therefore according to this wording, I couldn’t do either. Likewise, the canon reads about marriage status. If someone has run off with the deacon’s wife, who divorced him to marry this person, I would deny communion to that person. This section is just overly vague.

July 15, 3:07 pm | [comment link]
8. farstrider+ wrote:

#5, I think the word “asunder” was carefully chosen, reflecting back on Christ’s admonition that no one put asunder what God has joined together (i.e. male and female, in marriage).

July 15, 3:48 pm | [comment link]
9. Milton Finch wrote:

#5 & #8, 

Asunder is an excellent choice.  Retroactive, but scathing.  And, oh, so true.

July 15, 6:15 pm | [comment link]
10. Milton Finch wrote:

“it is beautiful, and it is true.”

July 15, 6:20 pm | [comment link]
11. Luke wrote:

The real problem here is there has been no future for many, many years, no, decades, in ECUSA for those who don’t accept and agree with what has happened. Surely there is not a single soul who expects a change of direction.
So to what end is there any purpose in lingering and chewing over and over the minutiae of a lost cause?

July 15, 10:45 pm | [comment link]
12. Cennydd13 wrote:

None whatever.

July 15, 11:49 pm | [comment link]
13. jann wrote:

[Comment deleted - we remind commenters that comments encouraging or instructing readers to leave or join any church are not permitted on T19 - thanks - Elf]

July 16, 1:02 am | [comment link]
14. MichaelA wrote:

This is strong godly leadership by a bishop who tells his flock what has happened, how it should be viewed in the light of biblical teaching, and what is his own reaction (his initial reaction - we will learn more after he has consulted with his council and clergy).

July 16, 1:24 am | [comment link]
15. Luke wrote:

14. MichaelA: +Mark shows a strength, yes, to some degree, but to what end? Why doesn’t he do as +Iker et al, and Moses did? This is not criticism, but curiosity.

July 16, 6:35 am | [comment link]
16. c.r.seitz wrote:

#15 God proposed that Moses be separated from his people and Moses interceded on their behalf and God forgave them and upheld Moses’ plea on their behalf. See Exod. 32—34.

July 16, 8:24 am | [comment link]
17. Sarah wrote:

RE: “Why doesn’t he do as +Iker et al, and Moses did?”

Uh . . . maybe his models are Jeremiah, Joseph, and Daniel?

I have no say, but I very much hope that the Diocese of SC will stay within TEC.

Very much so.  And there are a whole lot of people in the *Upper Diocese* who hope so.  The smart moderates—so that the conservatives have no place fantastic to go—and the conservatives so that we can still have them with us.

Should they leave, many smart revisionist and moderates will be depressed, and many conservatives will be as well.

Should they leave and not join ACNA but simply remain standing as a diocese, some of us conservatives in DUSC will swallow our disappointment and rush to join them.

But just think—they could please *SO MANY MORE PEOPLE* if they just stay.  ; > )

I’m very happy to be remaining within TEC.

When you’re within the will of God, there is always a future—as I’ve learned in the past 9 years as God has greatly blessed me—and there are no lost causes.

July 16, 9:19 am | [comment link]
18. victorianbarbarian wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with Sarah.  I’d much rather our parish and diocese had stayed and borne witness from within TEC. Instead we took refuge in the Southern Cone and helped to form ACNA.  I stayed with the parish and thus with the diocese.  People have to follow their conscience, and I have no doubt that’s what Bishop Lawrence and the DioSC will do.

July 16, 1:13 pm | [comment link]
19. Saltmarsh Gal wrote:

And, Sarah, don’t forget the one that seems the most appropriate to me - Hosea married to Gomer.

July 16, 2:17 pm | [comment link]
20. High_Church wrote:

Totally agree, South Carolina should stay.  It may take a while, but eventually there will not be many liberals left.  The Episcopal Church is in a free fall when it comes to membership.  When I look around my home parish, which still has a healthy ASA of 125-175, there are only 10 or so regular attenders under 50 and only 20 or so under 70.  Over the next twenty years all those people, many of them faithful Christians, unwittingly supporting the Devil’s agenda, will pass on to better things hopefully.  All this to say in 20 or 30 years if a faithful witness is maintained there may be more people in the Diocese of South Carolina than in the rest of the Episcopal Church combined.

July 16, 4:25 pm | [comment link]
21. SC blu cat lady wrote:

#20 wrote-
All this to say in 20 or 30 years if a faithful witness is maintained there may be more people in the Diocese of South Carolina than in the rest of the Episcopal Church combined.

Now that is an interesting thought!

July 16, 5:20 pm | [comment link]
22. David Hein wrote:

Nos. 8 and 9: Yes, you’re probably right; thanks.

“the Episcopal Church has no authority to put asunder this sacramental understanding of marriage as established by God in creation”

It [put asunder = pull apart] works more clearly when the two (or more) entities are stated nearby—husband and wife, let no man…—but I agree that here it means don’t pull apart these key elements of the doctrine of marriage; and, yes, the phrase is good because it harks back to the marriage rite.

July 16, 5:24 pm | [comment link]
23. MichaelA wrote:

“MichaelA: +Mark shows a strength, yes, to some degree, but to what end?”

Umm, to the end of leading the church.

What other end would there be?

July 16, 6:44 pm | [comment link]
24. MichaelA wrote:

“I’d much rather our parish and diocese had stayed and borne witness from within TEC.”

Why? I agree that there is a strong witness to be had within TEC.  But those who have left to form ACNA also have a strong witness. 

For example, they have the freedom to evangelise and plant churches in a way that is not practicable for those who remain (note I am not saying that those within TEC *cannot* evangelise or plant churches, just that it is much more difficult for them to do so, given the situation in TEC).

If I was an American Anglican who felt called to witness within TEC I would do so.  If that then proved unworkable, I would have no problem moving to ACNA.  At one point, such a situation seemed very possible for Australian Anglicans (although just recently even our liberal bishops seem to be trending back to orthodoxy, a little, so perhaps we will never have to face the same situation as our brethren in USA…watch and pray).

I note that many orthodox Anglican leaders have endorsed both situations, remaining in TEC or moving to ACNA.  Now personally I don’t care what Anglican leaders do or say, unless they are committed to the gospel.  For that reason, I care very much what various leaders of national Anglican churches (i.e. primates of provinces) around the world do and say.  Many of them (more than half of the 38 provinces in the Communion) have indicated strongly that they support ACNA, AND that they support the ministry of Communion Partners within TEC (and I take that to mean they support all faithful ministry within TEC, whether or not individuals and parishes have the opportunity to be directly overseen by a CP bishop or not).

Similarly, I note that +Lawrence maintains relations with various Anglicans around the world, with the emphasis on faithfulness, not whether or not they are officially in communion with Canterbury.  Take the following two examples:

(1) In January this year +Lawrence hosted the “Mere Anglicanism” conference, speakers at which included the Dean of TSM, the Bishop of London, and one of the bishops of the Anglican Mission in England, which was formed to provide alternative oversight to dissenting churches within the CofE.  Quite a mixed bag, but the common theme is that they are all faithful to Scripture and the formularies.

(2) In April of this year +Lawrence attended the Gafcon conference in London.  There are indications that attendance at this went well beyond those that are usually thought of as “Gafcon provinces”.

I have no problem with +Lawrence and his flock remaining within TEC.  If they leave, I have no doubt that they will continue to maintain relations with faithful Anglicans everywhere, including ACNA, just as they do now.  Whether or not they would join ACNA in this hypothetical situation, I do not know nor do I care to speculate.

I do hope that one day we will get to the situation where other Anglican churches (including several ACNA churches) in South Carolina can move to +Lawrence’s oversight.  But I would NOT advise them to do so at present:  Dio SC may yet come under a strong assault from TEC, and if so it would be madness for independent Anglican congregations to put their property in danger of a TEC property suit.  In time, I believe that we will see one Anglican diocese in each geographical area of the USA; but whether all or any of us will live to see that day is another matter.

July 16, 7:50 pm | [comment link]
25. Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] wrote:

#24 MichaelA
Like you, I applaud the contribution of South Carolina through things like Mere Anglicanism which I have certainly benefited from through listening to the talks, and like you I believe we are called on to support God’s faithful people, both those within and outside TEC.  I have never been to South Carolina, but have seen the witness of its clergy and laity as [and I know the area is called the Low Country] a beacon on a hill shining its light out into the dark.  It is not the only such beacon in TEC and I suspect there are faithful people all across what not so long ago was a confident, faithful and missionary-minded church that was a very fine church indeed.

At the end of the day, the Church is God’s not ours, and He will use all this for His purposes if we let him.  Bishop Lawrence, who I am lucky enough to have met, is a great gift and if people tire of him, please send him over to us - we should be so lucky!  Meanwhile, prayers for all concerned with thanks for their precious witness, which I pray continues to be allowed to shine out from the wonderful Diocese of South Carolina.

July 16, 10:08 pm | [comment link]
26. victorianbarbarian wrote:

“I’d much rather our parish and diocese had stayed and borne witness from within TEC.”

Why? I agree that there is a strong witness to be had within TEC.  But those who have left to form ACNA also have a strong witness.

 
Why? The answer, MichaelA, is that I don’t disagree with your statement, but I think our particular witness would have been better made within TEC than outside.  It might have led to illegal deposition of our bishop, or lawsuits against our diocese or parish.  We have those results anyway, but our moral high ground is not as lofty as it would have been if we’d stood instead of retreating to another, lower position.  We can still have a strong witness, but maybe we’d have increased five talents to ten, instead of two talents to four.  Sometimes it feels like we’ve hidden one talent in the ground.

July 17, 9:54 am | [comment link]
27. Milton Finch wrote:

One thing that really struck me, over the passage of time is this:

Back in 2003, when a large group left, South Carolina remained.  Illegal depositions began.  Court battles insued, and many godly people have been thrown from regular worship sites all over the nation by courts not willing to look more deeply into our make-up as a church.  Over those years, by what TEC has tried to do to the Diocese of South Carolina, very intelligent moves have been made by the Diocese and the
South Carolina Supreme Court that has insulated us to a large degree against anything TEC might try to do to us.  It has been a game of chess where the diocese always says “check” after each move. 

Sooner or later, TEC may simply toss the table on which we play, or maybe the time is now that the diocese simply completely distances it’s self from the politically liberal manifesto they find themselves a part of.

July 17, 10:29 am | [comment link]
28. Cennydd13 wrote:

Milton, if TEC does “toss the table,” what do you suppose the diocese will do?  Will they become independent of any jurisdiction, or will they choose to affiliate with the ACNA, which happens to be the largest and fastest growing orthodox Anglican jurisdiction on this continent…...and one which is faithful to Holy Scripture…...unlike TEC?

July 17, 12:42 pm | [comment link]
29. Milton Finch wrote:

The feeling I get is an independence of some sort recognized by the
Anglican Communion at the highest levels.  But that is just and merely a feeling.  No knowledge on my end whatsoever.

July 17, 1:06 pm | [comment link]
30. Milton Finch wrote:

I mean, heck, Cenny, maybe ACNA would come in under our protective “wing”.

July 17, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
31. MichaelA wrote:

“our moral high ground is not as lofty as it would have been if we’d stood instead of retreating to another, lower position.”

Why would your moral high ground not be as “lofty”?  You seem to think you have done something against apostolic teaching by leaving TEC - why would that be the case?  I would have thought the moral ground of the leavers is at least as high as that of the stayers.

I don’t see anywhere in scripture where it is commanded: “thou shalt not leave TEC” ... ;o)

“We can still have a strong witness, but maybe we’d have increased five talents to ten, instead of two talents to four.”

Isn’t it the other way around?  Our primary directive from the Lord is to baptise, make disciples and teach (Matt 28:19].  Those who are in ACNA have much greater opportunity to make disciples and baptise.

Also, don’t assume that every diocese that stayed would necessarily have had the “success” story that South Carolina has had so far.  If your diocese had stayed, you might by now be just one more of the many with your faithful bishop deposed, and replaced by a new guy or girl who makes all the right noises, but somehow just lets liberal clergy run rampant over the whole diocese etc.  The liberals works most nastily against the orthodox members in their midst by a slow cancer, eating away at their will to resist, and many have fallen that way.

As I say, I am not arguing that leaving or staying is better, but I disagree with those who argue that there is something intrinsically better about staying in TEC.

July 17, 7:56 pm | [comment link]
32. MichaelA wrote:

“Over those years, by what TEC has tried to do to the Diocese of South Carolina, very intelligent moves have been made by the Diocese and the South Carolina Supreme Court that has insulated us to a large degree against anything TEC might try to do to us.”

This is a very good point, especially about the SC Supreme Court - South Carolina’s survival owes a significant debt to divine providence, in terms of God moving the SCSC to decide in a certain way.  It doesn’t follow that dioceses in other States would have survived as well if they had stayed in TEC.

“The feeling I get is an independence of some sort recognized by the Anglican Communion at the highest levels.  But that is just and merely a feeling.  No knowledge on my end whatsoever.”

Another good point, as long as we remember that “highest levels” would mean various foreign primates, i.e. the same recognition that ACNA has now.  I think an independent Dio SC would have as much chance as ACNA of being recognised by ABC and the Anglican Consultative Council (to the extent that matters).

July 17, 8:02 pm | [comment link]
33. Milton Finch wrote:

You are so correct, MichaelA, on both accounts.  Always a thought in the back of my mind.  What does it matter as long as we stay true to our Lord and His recognition of our deed on the Final Day when we see Him in His Glory.

July 17, 8:22 pm | [comment link]
34. Milton Finch wrote:

Cess pool vs. Living Water?
Frankenstein vs. a Body made whole and complete through HIS touch?
Political determination as to who we are as a people vs. what we see as HIS determination for us as HIS people?
Where do we we stand as the Diocese of South Carolina?

July 17, 9:08 pm | [comment link]
35. Cennydd13 wrote:

We should remember that as far as the ACC is concerned, KJS’ membership on that council is only for as long as she’s PB, and therefore her influence will last only as long as she’s a member.  We don’t yet know the name of the next ABC, and therefore it’s too early to know how he will treat the ACNA, but my sense is that right now, recognition as a province of the Communion at this time isn’t that important; the main thing being that we are recognized by the majority of primates, while they’re either in impaired communion with TEC or have broken all connection with them.  TEC’s latest action at their General Convention isn’t going to help their relations with the majority of the primates, either.

July 17, 11:20 pm | [comment link]
36. Sarah wrote:

RE: “I think an independent Dio SC would have as much chance as ACNA of being recognised by ABC and the Anglican Consultative Council (to the extent that matters).”

I agree with that.

I hope that *if* the diocese leaves TEC [and I certainly hope it does not] that it will simply stand independent as the Episcopal Diocese of SC without joining any other Anglican entity. There’s no need to take on more baggage.

July 18, 8:35 am | [comment link]
37. Milton Finch wrote:

There is a sense of belonging that cannot be negated from the whole.  We as a diocese belong.  Where do we belong?  815 thinks we belong to them lock, stock and barrel.  We in the diocese know it is supposed to be the other way around.  What is this world wide Anglicanism, and where do we fit into it?  What coherencies exist outside of this structure of which we have been one part of many?  Or is it as simple as merely loosening the bolts that carry this side-car with us and let the side-car settle where it may as we move further down the road?  Ledges look scary when one is being pushed to the edge.  Even eagles must have a tinge of fear when a fellow nester jostles more than is necessary.

July 18, 9:07 am | [comment link]
38. MichaelA wrote:

Milton,

Remember that Saint Athanasius was expelled from his See, and orthodox presbyters tortured and banished, and this was all done or supervised by other bishops of the Church!  What we go through today is nothing new. 

You are in fellowship with faithful Anglicans (and indeed other Christians) all over the world, just as you are in communion with all the saints who have gone before.

July 18, 6:50 pm | [comment link]
39. Milton Finch wrote:

I’ve been through two much closer and personal spiritual battles before.  We are merely seeing it at the national level.  (Yes, those words are my selection, especially the “merely” because they do not personally involve a personal attack upon myself.)  Please keep our WONDERFUL Bishop Lawrence in your prayers as he undergoes the wine-press.  Also all those close to him as they help him with their words and pensions.  Also those that love the Word along with those that are near him and know the Word, also.  You know what I mean.  Your prayers should include those that feel “their church” is being ripped away from them.  They do not know the horror of those that may feel their church is being ripped from them.  Peace!

July 18, 7:54 pm | [comment link]
40. Milton Finch wrote:

You spoke good words, by. The Way.

July 18, 7:56 pm | [comment link]
41. Milton Finch wrote:

What is the most awkward and full of horror and bad press is when a church the size of an entire state is ripped from those that inhabit most of that state.  There is a blessing always…yet it might not feel like a blessing for the “winner”.

July 18, 8:51 pm | [comment link]
42. Milton Finch wrote:

Msnbc did a piece with our Bishop Lawrence.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/19/12811129-is-liberal-christianity-signing-its-own-death-warrant

[Milton - thank you for the link which is now posted on T19 - Elf]

July 19, 1:16 pm | [comment link]
43. Milton Finch wrote:

At first, the article was on the front page at the top, then after about an hour was removed to the US and World section that is lower on the page.  Within one hour, it no longer appeared on the front page at all.  I believe the reason is that there is a poll vote on the page and it is not going like the liberals desire it to go.

July 19, 6:00 pm | [comment link]
44. SC blu cat lady wrote:

It is there, Milton. The link works and the poll is indeed not going the way liberals would prefer. Last I checked (yesterday, Sunday July22) some 40,000 people had participated in the poll and 60+% thought the mainline denominations were dying because they were too liberal. There were only three choices, Yes,No, and I don’t know. It would be interesting to do a similar poll with members of TECUSA- lay and clergy.

July 23, 7:35 am | [comment link]
45. Milton Finch wrote:

That would be an excellent poll, Lady!  I believe we both know how it would turn out if tallied by the powers that be.  They would skew it for their benefit and desired outcome.  We seem to be democratic in flavor, yet not THAT democratic.

July 23, 9:45 am | [comment link]
46. Michael S. Mills wrote:

Does anyone know when the bishop is back?

August 21, 5:19 pm | [comment link]
47. Milton Finch wrote:

At the end of this month.  28th seems to be in my head for some reason.

August 22, 8:02 am | [comment link]
48. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Interesting to come back to this post months later. We know what happened to the Diocese of SC. We have decided to leave TEC. To those wondering if the Diocese will affiliate with some portion of the Anglican Communion.  With whom we will affiliate is under current discussion by diocesan leadership and that is the best answer I can give at the moment.  Until a decision is made, the Diocese of SC is independent of any province but we are recognized by a majority of the Anglican Communion. However, that won’t last forever. When the diocese decides (and I mean that quite literally as any decision made won’t be final until discussed at the parish and diocesan level much like our decision to leave), it will be made known to all.  That is just the way things are done here. I do think breaking free of TEc has been a wonderful blessing!

December 20, 11:28 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): (The State) South Carolina Episcopal bishop blasts national church

Previous entry (below): A Prayer to Begin the Day

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)