Just wanted to say, We pray for “Katharine, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church” every Sunday, even out in the boondocks of SC.

She most certainly doesn’t go unprayed for.
Gloria

We were not praying for her for some time, but recently have put her back in. We specifically pray for Rowan Williams, Bishop Salmon and Bishop Lawrence as our new bishop, and then for our priests. Mrs Schori is prayed for in a different section. My wife can’t stand that we mention her name, I consider it praying for our enemies.

Do these people at ENS *not* understand that everything that put up is cached by Google and other search engines??

And #3 and everyone else, here is the Google link to the cached copy with the deleted text appearing just after +Salmon’s comment about “being on the short end of the stick” in TEC:

I know it’s long, or you can copy the title of the article and paste it into Google’s search field and go to the Cached link of the first search result.  If Google cached it, it DID exist!

From the surviving text: Anderson: “...begin talking to people “whom you may not have talked to recently” so that together they might develop new models for mission.”

Bonnie—In case you didn’t know, the Diocese of SC is the fastest growing diocese in TEC. I think they’ve got their mission pretty well in focus. But of course, you mean the new mission of TEC that can’t sustain a description of Jesus Christ as Savior for the world.
[/snark]

Elves—The comment margins were zapped by Milton’s long weblink.

“The comment margins were zapped by Milton’s long weblink.”

Sorry about that.  I assumed it would wrap the link.  Oh, well!

Seems like they were trying to do late editing which should have been done earlier. I wonder if I should retract some of my offensive statements?

Oh, wait, the elves do that for me.

The elves can manually break it to restore the margins. Readers will just have to paste the parts in their browsers.

Tiny URL comes to the rescue:

http://tinyurl.com/28yeu2

I href’d it. All is Well™.

Given the state of things, good natured naivete and the best of intentions are the worst enemies of the diminishing reasserter leadership in the Episcopal Church.  I know people will object to my talking about “winners” and “losers” and “battles” in a supposedly Christian community….but we must face the facts: There has been a loooooong battle for the soul of the Episcopal Church and the reasserters have most certainly lost it (and that rather clearly and completely).  It is sad to observe, as I have over for some months now, various grand old bishops of orthodox stature gracefully and kindly step into the grave dug for them by the institutional leadership and dutifully assist the revisionists in piling the dirt in on top of themselves (and on those in the grave with them who were hoping to get out, or at least avoid being completely buried for one more day, week, year, diocesan convention, episcopal election, GC, or ....).  They have played into the hands of those they oppose on theological and moral grounds and inadvertently aid the sure and certain (and now complete?) revision of the Episcopal Church.

WestJ wrote
“We were not praying for her for some time, but recently have put her back in. We specifically pray for Rowan Williams, Bishop Salmon and Bishop Lawrence as our new bishop, and then for our priests. Mrs Schori is prayed for in a different section. My wife can’t stand that we mention her name, I consider it praying for our enemies.”  I am often disappointed that such lists, particularly in the case of foreign bishops, like Manicaland or Ottawa, are not up to the minute up-to-date, but surely this is not the problem here?  Who took +KJS out and who put her back in, when and why?

Our rector instructed us (layreaders) to omit KJS when praying for the leadership of our church and to substitute Rowan Williams instead. We are a Network parish and do not recognize Mrs. Schori as having any authority over us. More recently, we have been praying for her under the more general “concerns of the parish” section of the prayers. I’m not sure why this was done, we still pray for ++Rowan in place of the presiding bishop.

Sometimes, even when someone has not really said what is reported, their history makes what is reported believable—in this case it is the opposite. Bishop Salmon’s history makes the report that he would tell people not to prayer for those with whom they disagree simply unbelievable.

I have known Ed Salmon for forty years, worked for him for eight years, and in my resist struggles in Colorado he has been my most constant advisor and spiritual guide. His spiritual maturity and leadership, his bible and prayer book infused thinking, simply would not suggest such a thing as not to pray for your enemies, both for the negative impact it would have the person who would not pray thusly, and that in extreme circumstances one would desire more than anything and certainly pray for God’s intervention.

This is a tough battle and Bishop Salmon has some pretty determined enemies, although very few, in his own diocese—that is the nature of our current struggles. But one thing we can count on from Bishop Salmon is the sort of leadership and godliness that is very much lacking in his opposition. And this article from ENS just proves my point.

NOt a word about certain notoriously lying bishops and the gay marriages and blessings but innuendo and false testimony for a reasserter.  THIS IS KNOWN AS JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY by ENS.  It is integral to the goal of the powers-that-be hence truthy.

Not the first time nor the last.

I’m sorry to appear stupid, but I don’t understand the facts of the case, never mind what ENS did or did not report and then change.

I would be really interested to know:
Whether or not the bishop ever had issued any such instruction, and
If not,  then why did several other clergy claim that he had done so?

Seconds to #17, although I didn’t notice “several other clergy” in the deleted paragraphs. Did I miss something?

At any rate, did Bp. Salmon give instructions to removed Bp. Schori’s name from the prayers or not?

Seems to be a tempest in a teapot… Why does any of this matter?

It sounds to me like (and I have no knowledge of this specific situation, but have seen similar situations at work) Bishop Salmon allowed (some) rectors/vicars/priests-in-charge to remove +KJS from the prayers of the people and perhaps some priests took this as a directive to do so.  All too often we apply meaning to statements that isn’t there.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

In many Anglo-Catholic parishes there has long been a practice of omitting the mention of any bishops or politicians at all by name. One also hears intercessions for “Keith, my bishop protector” in the case of priests canonically resident in Quincy who minister in other places.

We also did not pray for Katherine for a long time—until the summer of 2006. 
:^ )
But just to be clear, there is only one of the “authorized” forms of the Prayers of the People that requires the mention of the Presiding Bishop (whomever it might be).  I use quotation marks because the introductory rubric says ”...one of the forms which follow may be used..”, and any time the word “may” is used rubrically it means it is optional.  What is not optional, of course, is the insertion into the Liturgy of the Prayers of the People.  This is why the outline of prayer points is on page 359 and at the top of page 383 (and the allowing rubric in Rite I on page 328, referencing the rubrics on pg 383).
My point would be not to make formally memtioning the PB in liturgical prayers a litmus test for ANYthing.  The forms of the Prayers of the People throughout the BCP underscore an Ignatian ecclesiology - “OUR” bishop, that is of the local diocese, at the expense of any presumed “higher” authority, which is simply not the case in the Episcopal Church.  I can pray for Katherine at the time of praying for bishops, or I can insert her name somewhere else, and it won’t make a bit of difference, nor does it carry any political deference.  I know EXACTLY why she needs prayer - because she needs God.
Which is why ENS even placing that nonsense in the original article is an agenda-driven machination.  Shame on them.  Again.

RGEaton

The queries from Emily & Simon illustrate the insidiouness of the affair.  There is now an underserved cloud over Bp Salmon, due solely to the ENS allegations.  Where’s the justice?

What if I said “I would be really interested to know: Whether or not Joe Smith ever had kicked a puppy, and if not, then why did I read somewhere (but I’m not telling you where) that somebody else said that he had done so?”

Does Joe Smith now owe me an explanation?  C’mon…

Sorry, “...undeserved cloud…” :-(

Maybe it’s just my edition, but I don’t see where the BCP specifically says you have to pray for the PB, unless you insist on using Form V. Three of the forms have no provisions for naming bishops at all. My “phony issue” detector is flashing. OTOH, I don’t suppose ENS has ‘fessed up to the change?

At the Cathedral in DoFW, we use Form V at all Sunday worship services.  We do not pray for the PBess since we don’t recognize her as a bishop. (not a directive from the bishop as far as I know)  We have always prayed for +++Rowan, followed by the diocesan and assisting bishop.  The PBess, although not mentioned by name, is included in the general prayer “For those who do not yet believe, and for those who have lost their faith, that they may receive the light of the Gospel, we pray to you, O Lord.”

Come on reasserters!  Please wake up!

Have any of you read the Mission of the SC Episcopal Forum ???

A smiling Bishop Salmon attends THEIR Conference on “Connecting with The Episcopal Church in 2007”  and says nice things, and bishop-elect Lawrence writes a nice message ??? ???

Bonnie Anderson was the Keynoter ???

Sheesh!

You can go round and round about this deleted paragraph from the ENS report or you can pay attention to the political and public relations machinations that you are (unwittingly?) getting sucked into. 

Feel safe in SC because of your orthodox bishops if you dare, but the revisionists will bury you.  Being nice and cozy and talking about “unity” and “mission”  (What does that mean?  Check the Forum’s website, Anderson’s comments, etc…) at revisionist sponsored events (because you’re nice guys and all) will only bring it to pass sooner.  Please get a clue.

First and simple question:  Did +Salmon say it or not? 

Next question:  Was something said that was misinterpreted?

Once this is in the light, everything else will flow from there.  As Rob Eaton+ points out, not every form lists individual clergy (PB, Bishop, Priest, etc.) to be prayed for.  Us L2, although irritating to hear +KJS’s name because it reminds us of the TECmess, do pray for +KJS, et. al., because it is imperative that we pray for all of those in authority over us - whether we agree with them or not.  God can move them or move them out. 

Our own actions are under our control.  Each of us is called to the higher standard by Christ.  It is to Him that we are accountable.  Let OUR actions be acceptable to God, and not a reflection/reaction of the poor action of others. 

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
  Now all has been heard;
    here is the conclusion of the matter:
    Fear God and keep his commandments,
    for this is the whole duty of man.
  For God will bring every deed into judgment,
    including every hidden thing,
    whether it is good or evil.

Once the truth is known, then corrective action can be taken. Untrue words that are spoken/written can not be recalled.  May God correct the one(s) in error in such a way that the damage is undone.

Remember we are talking about a church where lies become truth—jeez, I was just defrocked based on a pac of lies and it seems to have bothered no one—truth has nothing to do with anything in TEC.

The one thing that does seem clear is that 815 and the Most Reverend are leaning very hard on the position that bishops owe it (and her) unconditional fealty. It’s a completely untenable position for an Anglican to take, but so be it. How ENS came to drop this onto the web is of some interest, but it does seem to me to point to them as participants in the soon-to-commence campaign to unseat Duncan et al., whether at executive direction or just because they are staffed with fellow travellers.

RE:  # 29:
Don Armstrong is a man who understands what is going on in TEC.  I guess all reasserters will have to endure similar personal experiences before they finally get it.

blockquote]  Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all bishops and other
ministers [especially               ], that they may, both by
their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively Word,
and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments.

It makes perfect sense to include Schori in this prayer.  Isn’t it what we want for her?  Isn’t this the transformation that she needs?

At a lot of parishes I’d been to in the South—in Nashville, in Gainesville, Fla., in Tallahassee, Fla., and in Charleston, S.C.—the prayers of the people mention “Rowan, archbishop of Canterbury; Katherine, the presiding bishop, _____, our bishop ....” 

Then I began attending parishes here in Birmingham.  After attending Ascension (Vestavia Hills, Ala.), St. Luke’s (Mountain Brook, Ala.), All Saints’ (Homewood, Ala.), and Cathedral of the Advent (Birmingham).  Every where I went in Birmingham, I noticed that the prayers of the people were different: “Katherine, our presiding bishop; Rowan, archbishop of Canterbury; ....”

At first, I didn’t think anything about it.  After reading about some of the shenanigans happening around TpECusa, I decided to ask what was going on.  I inquired around the church and learned from one of our clergy that our Bishop had directed that if Rowan was prayed for that Katherine must be prayed for first.

It’s a small thing.  In fact, I’d argue it’s petty.  I’ll say this, though: as a Christian, I am most definitely sincerely praying for the Most Rev. Katherine, that she will repent of her “-isms” and lead her Church back into the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith.

Christopher [#8]: It’s never too late. But you have in any event become far more temperate.

Brad,
You wrote: “I guess all reasserters will have to endure similar personal experiences before they finally get it.”
What are you saying exactly, that we who have endured horrible things at the hands of our TEC overlords should no longer pray for them?  I have also endured much within TEC and yet continue to pray for my Bishop and our “primate”.  I don’t count them as friends, and theologically they have crossed the line into enemy territory.  But, then, Jesus told us how to treat our enemies.

I have attended worship services in a number of parishes in South Carolina over the past few years and most of them prayed for “Robert, Our Moderator” instead of the Presiding Bishop.  I can not imagine that Bishop Salmon is not well aware of this since he routinely visits these same parishes.  While he may not have told his rectors not to pray for +KJS, he has never told them that, as long as they are members of the Episcopal Church, they should be praying for the Presiding Bishop, and not someone who is in rebellion against the Church and actively working to tear it apart.

As for the event in SC, the organizers are traditional Episcopalians.  There was a tape made of the proceedings.  When greetings from the Bishop-Elect were read there was applause.  When Salmon was introduced and his service to the Diocese was recognized, there was a standing ovation.

There was a problem at the end of the panel discussion in which Bishop Salmon was a participant.  He left before it was over and therefore was not able to respond questions that members of the audience had about his comments.

It is important to understand that this incident did happen, but these two paragraphs were deleted by ENS from the original article.  It hardly seems worth putting them online again since they are completely out of context.

Aside: 40 years ago, I remember the prayers at St. Timothy’s,Fort Worth, included a petition for “Paul, our Patriarch”. 

#35 dl:  I do believe we should pray for our enemies…even those who would bury us (as I have said above).  However, I wonder about the wisdom of cozying up to them at their conferences and making statements that sound so very nice and friendly (and in the popular hearing agreeable, even reconciled) as though nothing is seriously wrong with our relationships.  I think this sort of behavior by reasserters is the real story in this article.  I fear that it is the behavior of those who (against all the evidence) still don’t seem to “get it” and know the forces they are dealing with and, for this reason, will be beaten and assimilated.  Pray for the Presiding Bishop, for Bonnie Anderson, for David Booth Beers, but don’t become an unwitting (or witless) ally in their continued revision of the Church.

I would just like to say that holding the office of presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church does not make Katherine my bishop, nor does it give her any authority over me, God-granted or otherwise.  Scriptural mandates about submission to authority on the basis that God is in control were written in a context of “divine entitlement.”  Those scriptural references assume a monarchy, derived straight from God.  “Render under Caesar what Caesar is due” only begs the question:  To what is Caesar due?  The democratic election process in The Episcopal Church (or the USA for a whole, for that matter) does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that God placed someone in a position of authority.  Electors are fallible in every sense of the word.  A person has authority in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the scriptural sense when they allow God to work through them as such.  Apostates cannot exercise real, spiritual authority in the Church simply by virtue of their election.  The rest is just polity and churchmanship—two things in which I am not interested in the least.

**PS:  In the interest of full disclosure, at my parish in the diocese of Dallas, the lay reader skips over the part of the prayers dealing with the presiding bishop, and prays for James, our bishop, Douglas, our Parish priest, et al.  I have heard a prayer for the Archbishop of Canterbury once, but never Katherine Schori.  We are an ACN parish, and there are no female “priests,” but there is a female deacon.  FWIW.

Brad,
Agreed.

We pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, Katherine our Presiding Bishop, John-David our Bishop, our priest and all who serve Christ in His Church.  And we are an ACN mission.

As best as I can recollect, as an active priest in the Dio of SC, I do not ever recall hearing Bishop Salmon direct us not to pray for KJS.  In fact, for him to do so seems somewhat out of character.

RE: “I inquired around the church and learned from one of our clergy that our Bishop had directed that if Rowan was prayed for that Katherine must be prayed for first.”

How intriguing about Bishop Parsley.  Fascinating that he exerts that sort of level of micromanaging control over the way parishes work.

RE: “While he may not have told his rectors not to pray for +KJS, he has never told them that, as long as they are members of the Episcopal Church, they should be praying for the Presiding Bishop. . .”

Sorry, but not ordering the clergy how to pray in their parishes is not at all the same as ordering “diocesan clergy to refrain from praying for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori during the Prayers of the People.”

In fact, the two things are directly the opposite.  The one is refusal to micromanage, the other is micromanaging.

RE: “As for the event in SC, the organizers are traditional Episcopalians . . . “

LOL.  This organization is a raging revisionist organization . . . and one incidentally that did its utmost to prevent Bishop Lawrence from being consented to.  They are anything but “traditional” and indeed one may google certain members’ names and find any number of ridiculously revisionist letters, articles, and comments.

It is almost impossible to find truth in a situation like this.  I hope that the initial report is untrue, and I would be deeply disturbed if it was.

Practice varies on Prayers of the People; if it was left out without compulsion from the bishop, that is just the way things generally go.

Randall

Sarah, it sounds like you may be new to the way that the Episcopal Church is structured.  In our tradition the Diocesan bishop is the central spiritual and administrative authority an dthe clergy are extensions of that authority.  Individual parishes do not operate independently.  In the Diocese of South Carolina, Bishop Salmon is a particularly strong bishop, and has never hesitated to intervene in the policies and practices of his local parishes.  Maybe they are just used to it, but I have never heard anyone describe this as micromanagement.

If the Bishop felt that the practice of refusing to pray for the PB or substituting “Robert, Our Moderator” for “Katharine, our Presiding Bishop” was inappropriate, he would have stopped it a long time ago.  He didn’t.  Even when he had the chance to make a statement to that effect at the Episcopal Forum conference, he didn’t.  He just said that he had not told any parish not to pray for her.

As far as your statement about the Episcopal Forum being a “raging revisionist” organization and its members writing “ridiculously revisionist” letters, I would encourage you to take a higher road.  My view—which is shared by both Bishops Salmon, Bishop-Elect Lawrence, and the Episcopal Forum—is that the ridiculing or labeling those whose experience of God is different from our own does nothing to serve the cause of Jesus Christ.

During Bishop Lawrence’s election process, the concerns expressed by the Forum very specifically did not include a request that his election be rejected by the wider Church.  It did urge Standing Committees and Bishops to look closely at his writings to determine how his views would affect the polity of the Church.  They also raised concerns about the way the Diocese bypassed numerous canonical and procedural concerns that effectively eliminated the voices of those who are traditional Episcopalians in the Diocese.

Last week the Forum wrote the Bishop-Elect and congratulated him on his consents and invited him to attended the workshop with Bonnie Anderson and Bishop Salmon.  He was unable to do that but sent a substantial and encouraging message to the group that was met by generous applause when it was read in full.  Bishop Salmon’s participation in the workshop was greeted not once but twice with a standing ovation.  I find it difficult to understand how either of these actions can be described as those of “raging revisionists”. 

I understand the recorded the entire program.  Perhaps you could contact them and get a copy of it before you misrepresent the group or ridicule its members.

Charlie re your comment “is that the ridiculing or labeling”— I think if you looked back you were the first to label—and you labelled them “traditional Episcopalians” . All Sarah was doing was saying that on the basis of their own words, you have slandered them by mislabelling them. They are far from traditional—though that is true of most Episcopalians (which half of the description you probably did get right - but I have no way of knowing.)

No. 39 - Your bishop has authority over your by virtue of his consecration, not by virtue of your own determination as to whether he is allowing God to “work through him”.

RE: “Sarah, it sounds like you may be new to the way that the Episcopal Church is structured.”

Sounds like you’re making a not-very-successful attempt—in an insecure sort of way—to be condescending and smug.  ; > )  I merely expressed an opinion that such demands about who to or who not to pray for would be micromanagement.  I’d say that Bishop Salmon in this instance appears to compare favorably to that Dear Leader, Bishop Henry Parsley.

RE: “Even when he had the chance to make a statement to that effect at the Episcopal Forum conference, he didn’t.”

Good for him!

RE: “I would encourage you to take a higher road . . . “

I’m merely sharing my belief about the group . . . which is taking the high road.  You wouldn’t want me to lie about my beliefs, would you, especially when they are so well supported by the facts? 

RE: “During Bishop Lawrence’s election process, the concerns expressed by the Forum very specifically did not include a request that his election be rejected by the wider Church.”

LOL.

Oh, I think your two letters sent to the Standing Committees were quite clear enough.

“We question whether a person who repudiates our national Church and is working to replace The Episcopal Church with another organized church structure should be considered qualified to be a bishop in this or any other diocese. Please give our concerns your prayerful attention as you consider your consent to this election.”

Just a wee tad late to be pulling back from that stance now . . . and more than a little hypocritical. 

Just for everyone’s interest, one may find the November 2006 letter here:
http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/view_newsletter.php?newsletter_id=1409582337

And the latest letter here from September 2007.  Thankfully, the effort this time around failed:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6023

RE: “I find it difficult to understand how either of these actions can be described as those of “raging revisionists”.”

I’m afraid that you are mistaken about the meaning of the word “revisionist.”  Revisionists are perfectly capable of standing to applaud people—especially when they’ve got a lot of “reaching out” to do now. 

It also sounds like you may be new to the this blog, which has covered quite well the various effusions of The Episcopal Forum—aka “Via Media.” 

There is, for instance, this demolishment by Rick Belser of the full page ads that the “traditional” Episcopal Forum put in the Charleston and Columbia newspapers:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15252

And then, there are a number of delectable statements by members of the Episcopal Forum mentioned in an article this year in the Charleston Post and Courier:

“I get angriest when people start talking about the authority of Scripture,” Mann said during a recent interview. She has served six years on the National Executive Council and chaired the National Audit Committee, and has served as a deputy at four General Conventions since 1985. She now serves as Province IV treasurer.

The Holy Spirit and its influence change as people change, she said. “As we pray, we believe.” It’s worship, not credo that has mostly held members of the Anglican community together, she added. “It is not a confessional church.”

In 2004, the Pagliaros helped found the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, a group working to keep the church united.

Lynn Pagliaro differentiated “liberal” and “conservative” attitudes this way: Religious liberals, he said, believe God created the world and humankind so that people could love the Creation and one another, and flourish. Conservatives believe in following guidelines they say were established by God in an attempt to avoid evil. The former, he said, is focused on a dynamic and inspirational Holy Spirit, the latter on the word of God.

Priceless quotes, well representing the “traditional” Episcopal Forum.

And then . . . there was this report from members who attended the 2006 General Convention . . . a convention, incidentally, that proudly reaffirmed membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, announced via resolution that certain portions of Holy Scripture were anti-semitic, and refused to affirm the Lordship of Christ or His uniqueness . . . which fit quite well with the heretical theology of our Presiding Bishop.

Apparently, these actions were right in line with the “traditional” members of the Episcopal Forum.

6.  SC Episcopalians Return from General Convention Upbeat on ECUSA, Disappointed in Our Delegation (June 23, 2006)

“They must have been at another convention”

South Carolinians, who were not part of the Diocese’s official delegation to the General Convention, are bringing back remarkably upbeat reports on last month’s national gathering in Ohio.

About two dozen members of our Diocese participated in a variety of capacities as members of special committees, pages, cooks, volunteers, and leaders of ECWs, EYCs, and the Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD).

“I have never been to anything as uplifting,” reported Melinda Lucka from Charleston, who took her teenaged son. “I’ll never miss another one.”

Others reported being amazed by the volume of legislative work that was completed, while still others found inspiration in the work being done among the youth, the poor, altar guilds, liturgies, and in the mission field. They expressed surprise that the delegates from our Diocese have come back with gloomy and critical assessments of an event they found so Spirit-filled

“They were definately at another convention,” said Barbara Mann, who attended with her husband Dave. “I don’t know how anyone could have been there and not gotten caught up the enthusiam for our work ahead.”

Many expressed disappointment that members of our Diocese’s delegation to the House of Deputies at times seemed to be disengaged from the business of the convention and often wandered in and out during important sessions. Apparently, many were attending competing meetings of dissenter groups like the ACN, or working the pool of journalists looking for controversy.

Those we interviewed specifically disputed reports by some S.C. delegates that the official Eucharists did not include the Confession of Sin in its order of service or avoided mentions of the Trinity.

A number of those attending said they were struck by the high level of mutual respect most delegates had for each other even when they had very different views.

No, I think everybody on this blog recognizes who and what the Episcopal Forum stands for—it has, after all, been copiously documented and commented on this very blog.  The nice thing is . . . the progressives who make up the Episcopal Forum recognize that the diocese is actually—in contradiction of their own theology—a traditional diocese, and hence the Episcopal Forum attempts to redefine “traditional” and wrap itself in the flag of that redefined word.

Shameful. Hypocritical.  . . . . But perfectly expected from the Episcopal Forum.

Thank you for your response, Margaret.  I had no intention of maliciously labeling anyone, but thought “traditional Episcopalians” would be a helpful description of the group.  This is how the group would describe themselves.

Since you admit you have no way of knowing who these people are or what they believe, let me help.  I do know them. 

The people who showed up at the event last weekend were mostly from among those who have been part of the Episcopal Church their entire lives, as were their parents, grandparents etc.  There were many former Vestry people and wardens.  They and their families have helped build this Diocese from its poor rural origins to what it is today.  Their family names are on plaques on Church walls and buildings. I have worshipped with many of them when Rite I and 1928 Prayer Book were used and no one seemed to burst an artery. Their worship service at the workshop came right out of the Prayer Book and Hymnal—no bouncing balls or electric guitars.  They actually brought in an organ and church organist.  None of these people is interested in requesting Episcopal oversight.  When the new Bishop arrives here, he will find these folks very eager to meet with him.  In fact, every one of the folks at the workshop who had been delegates to the electing conventions for bishop voted for Father Lawrence.

However, these people have not supported the Diocese’s decision to join the Network and opposed the tactics the Diocese has taken in response to Bishop Robinson’s election in 2003.  For this they have been alienated from their parishes.  Several were actually asked to leave, while at least one was the subject of an unwelcomed exorcism.  Most of the people there were husband and wife couples, and at least two I spoke to came to the conference because they want their children to be raised as Episcopalians, without being exposed to the “negativity” of the local clergy and their “unrelenting hostility” toward the Church.  (Their words)

Forgotten in all this madness are those who believe in the unity of the Church, even when you can barely tolerate those with whom you disagree.  When that becomes impossible, they—in the words of Bishop Steenson—leave quietly. 

I should point out that this event was not a meeting of the Episcopal Forum.  It was a workshop that was open to anyone and everyone in the Diocese.  The fact that none of the Network clergy chose to participate in face-to-face conversation with a leader of the TEC whom they so vehemently detest speaks volumes. 

I hope this is helpful to you since you were not at the event.

Sarah, my goodness.

First off, the event last weekend was only SPONSORED by the Forum.  It was open to everyone in the Diocese and not confined to Forum members.  The event was advertised in the Diocesan newspaper which Canon Harmon edits, and people from about one-third of the parishes showed up.  (I regret that those people who responded out of genuine desire to hear from a leader of our Church, were then attacked and labeled by angry bloggers they had never heard of.  I don’t think many of them even know what a “revisionist” is, much less a raging one.)

Secondly, the business about the GC refusing to acknowledge Jesus as Lord is a cheap shot by disgruntled spinmeisters.  Everyone is well aware of what happened, and no one buys this line.  It’s easy to research for yourself.  There was non-germane language about Jesus as Lord in a broader resolution that was tabled because its substance was already part of our Creeds and Prayer Book.  There was no debate or resolution on the Lordship of Christ.

If the GC delegates did not believe in the Lordship of Christ, why would they have left the concept so prominently in the Book of Common Prayer, the Creeds, the 39 Articles, and the Sacraments?  Since you obviously believe this happened, I can understand how you might have been astonished at the Installation of the PB when she and the entire leadership of the Church recited their Baptismal vows, the Nicene Creed, and consumed the “Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”  I might add that in none of the national coverage of the GC or the initial reports of Bishop Salmon or Canon Harmon was such a remarkable rejection of 2000 of Christian doctrine reported.  It was just a cheap shot to discredit very decent Christians who were trying to do the best for their Church.

Thirdly, I am not sure what you mean by the Forum needing to reach out.  It has always been open to dialogue with anyone in the Diocese regardless of their views.  Bishop Salmon has marginalized them, but they have never rejected him.  Similarly, with Bishop Lawrence, they are open to better understanding him and where he wants to take the Diocese.  His writings and public statements were never fully explained and they rightly asked the bishops and standing committees to force some answers. 

However, as Bishop Skilton discovered, traditional Episcopalians in SC respect and honor their Bishops.  They were the ones who rallied around him when he was treated so shamefully by the Diocesan leadership.  Bishop Lawrence will discover the same thing.  He he chooses to marginalize them, he will be the loser.

Interesting that you would have such a positive take on Father Belser’s attack on the Forum in the local news media.  Most traditional Episcopalians believe that incident marked the beginning of the end for the Network in this Diocese.  He came across as mean-spirted and angry, and the public saw for the first time the intolerance (and sometimes incoherent) side of the Network.  The prospect of established clergy attacking loyal lay people didn’t help either.  Clergy in the traditional parishes in the Diocese will tell you that was also the moment they began seeing communicants of the Network parishes showing up on their doorsteps.

The truth is that support for the Network is collapsing in the Diocese.  Originally, all the TEC haters in the Diocese thought they could just walk out the door with their historic buildings and everything would be fine.  Bishop Salmon and Canon Harmon led them to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury was supporting the Network (though he never publicly counseled them to leave the Church).  The Bishop was able to keep his clergy in line by force of his personality and occasional wrath, but that will not be as easy for Father Lawrence. 

Sarah, please forgive me if I sounded condescending or smug toward you.  It was not intentional.  While you certainly have every right to express your opinions frankly, your writing does betray an unhelpful lack of respect for those with whom you are in disagreement.  With your obvious knowledge and passion for your ideas, you would be taken more seriously if you could lower your attack rhetoric and steer clear of the sarcasm and insults.  Just a suggestion from someone who only knows you by your postings.

Charlie,

RE: “With your obvious knowledge and passion for your ideas, you would be taken more seriously . . . “

I am taken seriously by those with whom I have an interest in being taken seriously.  I am perfectly well satisfied with how seriously people take me.  Nor have I any interest in being “taken seriously” by you . . . although I would point out that probably to clam that you are not taking me seriously you would have to not respond to my words.  ; > )

RE: “Bishop Salmon and Canon Harmon led them to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury was supporting the Network (though he never publicly counseled them to leave the Church).”

I have seen zero indication of Harmon or Salmon wanting people to “leave the church” and in so far as the Network becomes such a body [more than half of its bishops, however, do not wish to leave ECUSA] I am quite confident that they will then be a part of another configuration that allows them to differentiate themselves from the heretical beliefs and practices of the national church while at the same time staying in ECUSA.

And I am equally confident that Episcopal Forum will not support such actions . . . since in fact, Episcopal Forum is made up of people who support the national church’s heretical theology as evidenced by the above copious illustrations.

RE: “Most traditional Episcopalians believe that incident marked the beginning of the end. . . “

LOL.  As we have already established your interesting definition of the word “traditional” I believe that we can safely assume that to be the couple of hundred members of Episcopal Forum.  On the contrary, however, most traditional Episcopalians cheered the Belser letter’s incisive critique of the muddled thinking of those ads.

RE: “Everyone is well aware of what happened, and no one buys this line.  It’s easy to research for yourself.  There was non-germane language about Jesus as Lord in a broader resolution that was tabled because its substance was already part of our Creeds and Prayer Book.”

You mean . . . “no one” progressive.  ; > )  I was at the General Convention, Charlie, and I know precisely what happened.  The reason why the resolution was tabled was because the deputies were too embarrassed to have it be voted down.  Of course . . . that was but one of many many actions of that General Convention.

But let’s not get sidetracked.  I provided all those samples above as clear examples of the Episcopal Forum members’ theology . . . and I think we all can safely establish that it is not, in fact, “traditional.”

RE: “I regret that those people who responded out of genuine desire to hear from a leader of our Church, were then attacked and labeled by angry bloggers they had never heard of.”

Nope—only Episcopal Forum has been “labelled” Charlie.  And it has earned the label as an accurate description of its theology.

The fact that you and others wish to claim that you are “traditional” merely illustrates just how much you know that the Episcopal Forum members’ liberal theology will not play in the Diocese of South Carolina.

However, clothing yourselves in the word “traditional” will not work, particularly since we have a blog like T19 that so consistently communicates the facts.

#48 Rob K:  Sorry, Rob.  Going through the motions of consecration does not a consecrated one make.  One cannot be a bishop in the church of God merely by having some words said over them.  Mrs. Schori can play dress-up and power-play all she wants to.  It does not make her a bishop in the church of God.  WO aside, she does not believe in the one true God or his church.

“If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” Titus 1:5-9.

Polity holds no sway when it conflicts with reality, as shown to us by God through the prophets, apostles and saints.

re 53: Minus the grandstanding, the last I checked your bishop ordains women and is in communion with women bishops. For all your “no compromise” rhetoric, you are already compromised. And if polity comes second or third or whatever to your principles, I’m sure a there’s a continuing parish somewhere which would allow you to honor your absolutes while compromising on polity.

This whole discussion has gotten weirdly Eastern. If you want to lambaste the Dioceses of Dallas and South Carolina for ordaining women, that’s really your problem. Recognizing ordained women as they do, it is biblical to expect them to pray for those bishops, however wrong-headed they may be.

51 and 52 ... I meant that Bishop Salmon never counseled his parishes to leave TEC.  Sorry for the confusion.

C. Wingate # 54:  I think you’ve misunderstood me.  I said “WO aside, she does not believe in the one true God or his church.”  I tried to make it clear that the point was not her female-ness, but her unbelief.  It is biblical to pray for her, as it is any unbeliever, but she is not my bishop.  Read the verses I posted with a gender-neutral lens, and provide me with a principled justification as to how she could possibly be a bishop according to God’s Word.

re 56: I see that I have, and I apologize for that. But I still cannot agree with the clarified version, because I think much the same problem persists. Are you ready to check as to whether any given priest has been ordained by here (or any other bishop you reject as an unbeliever)? I personally am unwilling to make claims as to the efficacy of someone’s sacraments; I can and do say that I will not take communion from a certain person, but I’m not going to say that their sacraments are invalid, because I can’t really tell. In our polity (by which I mean episcopal polity in general) those determinations are to be left to the bishops, where I will quite gladly leave them. I have no problem saying that so-and-so is a bad bishop, but to for me to deny that he is not a bishop at all (except for the juridical reasons) is presumptuous.

re 57:  Under normal circumstances, I would agree.  But this goes further than efficacy of sacraments, which is, by the way, to use your term, a very Eastern concept   This question goes to whether we are even practicing the same religion, a question to which I would answer, “No.”  In any event, there is no presumption taking place.  I only take what Mrs. Schori has said about her beliefs as true and accept her statements at face value.  No presumption need be made.

While we should always pray for our enemies, Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians:

“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat”,

seems to instruct us rather forcefully that the immoral and heretical should not be prayed for in a way that would indicate fellowship with them. I will not pray for Schori as my BP or even as a bishop in the church, for I do not recognize her or any heretic to be one, She is but another sinner persecuting the church, this time from within because we lack the will to thrust her out, or ourselves out of her company.

What about those of us who think that Calvinist theology is heretical?  We don’t, though, refuse to recognize the consecration of bishops that believe so.

I’m not willing to call anyone a heretic, given its long history of meaning “religious non-person.” And I’m really chary of people appointing themselves as judges of heresy. It obviously degenerates into “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not like that heretic over there,” and I see that kind of sentiment in this blog’s comments all the time. (And in other Anglican reasserter blogs, it is a lot worse.)

I really just can’t see what the big deal is about praying for her, so I have to conclude that it’s really about taking a posture about her episcopal authority. And you know, if you’re going to do that, then find another archdiocese. Really. I do not deny in any way that she presents a lot of problems, occupying the position that she does. I think some of those problems are hugely overstated, but that’s beside the point. I think she shouldn’t have been elected, but that’s beside the point. What I object to is this need to make a liturgical show of one’s disapproval. It is patently self-righteous. Pray for her enlightenment, for her repentance, whatever; if she were to have a change of heart, it would be devastating for the revisionist cause, after all.

I’ll take Paul’s cue:

  I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different Gospel, which is not another;  but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.

  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

  As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.  (Galatians 1:6-9, NKJV)

I’ll see you a Paul and raise you a Jesus: “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matt 5:44-45)

If separating yourself is so important, than do so! And then stop patting yourself on the back in public for doing so. But if the Episcopal Church be still important to you, then it only makes sens eto pray for its earthly head, whatever you think of her.

Um, hate to bring out logic rules, but a general statement will not control over a specific statement, regardless of the speaker.  Obviously, the Episcopal Church is still important to me—else I wouldn’t be here.  I’m not really sure where all the separation talk is coming from, but clearly you have, from the start, been projecting things onto me that do not reflect anything I’ve ever said.  So, I’m going to stop the conversation here.